US Hillary Clinton’s 2024 Election Comeback - Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have become unpopular. It may be time for a change candidate.

  • 🔧 Issue with uploading attachments resolved.
  • 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
1641956544835.png

A perfect storm in the Democratic Party is making a once-unfathomable scenario plausible: a political comeback for Hillary Clinton in 2024.
Several circumstances—President Biden’s low approval rating, doubts over his capacity to run for re-election at 82, Vice President Kamala Harris’s unpopularity, and the absence of another strong Democrat to lead the ticket in 2024—have created a leadership vacuum in the party, which Mrs. Clinton viably could fill.

She is already in an advantageous position to become the 2024 Democratic nominee. She is an experienced national figure who is younger than Mr. Biden and can offer a different approach from the disorganized and unpopular one the party is currently taking.

If Democrats lose control of Congress in 2022, Mrs. Clinton can use the party’s loss as a basis to run for president again, enabling her to claim the title of “change candidate.”

Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Mrs. Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to help her decide whether or not to run for president again. She recently warned of the electoral consequences in the 2022 midterms if the Democratic Party continues to align itself with its progressive wing and urged Democrats to reject far-left positions that isolate key segments of the electorate.

In a recent MSNBC interview, Mrs. Clinton called on Democrats to engage in “careful thinking about what wins elections, and not just in deep-blue districts where a Democrat and a liberal Democrat, or so-called progressive Democrat, is going to win.” She also noted that party’s House majority “comes from people who win in much more difficult districts.”

Mrs. Clinton also took a veiled jab at the Biden administration and congressional Democrats in an effort to create distance: “It means nothing if we don’t have a Congress that will get things done, and we don’t have a White House that we can count on to be sane and sober and stable and productive.”

Even Bill Clinton recently set the stage for his wife’s potential 2024 candidacy, referring to her in an interview with People magazine as “the most qualified person to run for office in my lifetime, including me,” adding that not electing her in 2016 was “one of the most profound mistakes we ever made.”

We can infer based on these recent remarks that Mrs. Clinton would seize the opportunity to run for president again if an opening presents itself. But what are the odds that an opportunity will arise?

The Democrats’ domestic agenda is in disarray given the failure of Mr. Biden’s Build Back Better plan in Congress. Senate Democrats’ latest desperate push to repeal the legislative filibuster to pass their secondary legislative priority, voting-rights reform, will likely weaken their agenda further.
Mr. Biden’s overall approval rating is low (40%), as is his rating on issues including the economy and jobs (38%) and taxes and government spending (33%), according to a recent Economist/YouGov poll. Nearly two-thirds of independent voters disapprove of the president.

Barring a major course correction, we can anticipate that some Democrats will lose important House and Senate races in 2022—in part for the reasons Mrs. Clinton identified—giving Republicans control of both chambers of Congress.

Polls generally show the GOP with a solid lead of at least 2 or 3 points in the 2022 generic congressional vote—a margin that likely would be enough to take back the House, given the narrow Democratic majority and the anticipated outcomes of redistricting in several states that could affect key races.

Given the likelihood that Democrats will lose control of Congress in 2022, we can anticipate that Mrs. Clinton will begin shortly after the midterms to position herself as an experienced candidate capable of leading Democrats on a new and more successful path.

Mrs. Clinton can spend the time between now and midterms doing what the Clinton administration did after the Democrats’ blowout defeat in the 1994 midterms: crafting a moderate agenda on both domestic and foreign policy. This agenda could show that Mrs. Clinton is the only credible alternative to Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris, and the entire Democratic Party establishment.

Hillary Clinton remains ambitious, outspoken and convinced that if not for Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey’s intervention and Russian interference that she would have won the 2016 election—and she may be right.

If Democrats want a fighting chance at winning the presidency in 2024, Mrs. Clinton is likely their best option.


 
Why can't these boomers all die before the next election? let the world move on from the gay status quo of the last 70 years.
 
Man, the Deep State really wants that war against Russia, don't they?

Don't swallow the Dulles pill!

The last thing they REALLY want is an actual, boots-on-the-ground war with Russia. They're not THAT stupid.

They just want you to think Russia is the source of all evil in the world, and present you with a variety of "solutions" that involve them doing whatever the fuck they want to elsewhere (examples being Korea, Vietnam, large portions of South America, etc).
 
For the love of God, can we stop suggesting candidates who are at an age where they should realistically be looking at moving down to Florida or Arizona to look for a nice retirement community? Please?

Seriously Hillary had her best shot in 2008, but Obama won the primary instead of her, because he actually had charisma, and didn't have a visible seething hatred of anyone who wasn't him. At this point, another Clinton run is just pointless. The democrats are in a weird spot where all their top stars are either young as fuck and starting their careers, or older than dirt. They don't particularly have a good stable in between those two categories that are particularly viable on a national stage.
 
Had a conversation with an American which seemed odd to me. I said I blamed Hillary for "Libya" and she thought I was referring to some embassy bombing which to her was the big political problem. I had to explain that no, I meant how Hillary is one of the people chiefly responsible for destroying the country with a bombing campaign and backing a group of militants from Benghazi who ethnically cleansed their way across the country and turned it from one of the most successful countries in North Africa (or all of Africa) to a failed state with catastrophic debt, multiple competing governments and an endless, murderous state of war. It had the highest literacy rates in North Africa, the highest number of doctors per capita, very little debt and a nationalized oil industry that actually funded major public works and social programs. Now it's one giant terrorist factory and it's because Hillary pushed and pushed for it to be bombed.

Is the destruction of a country really so small in American public awareness?
What are you talking about? That was part of the Arab Spring, which was such a huge success for the Obama admin. You just don’t understand how things are better both there and in Syria.

/sarcasm because autists
 
For the love of God, can we stop suggesting candidates who are at an age where they should realistically be looking at moving down to Florida or Arizona to look for a nice retirement community? Please?

Seriously Hillary had her best shot in 2008, but Obama won the primary instead of her, because he actually had charisma, and didn't have a visible seething hatred of anyone who wasn't him. At this point, another Clinton run is just pointless. The democrats are in a weird spot where all their top stars are either young as fuck and starting their careers, or older than dirt. They don't particularly have a good stable in between those two categories that are particularly viable on a national stage.
We need term limits in the house and senate, as well as for supreme court justices. Our government is starting to look like a retirement home.
 
They only way I would be for this is to watch her lose again and possibly get to see her stroke out in rage on live TV.

Hey man, she's been responsible for the deaths of many people who crossed her.
Listen, if you think it’s suspicious that multiple people who’ve crossed the Clintons have found themselves committing suicide, you’re crazy.

I, for one, would definitely kill myself by shooting myself in the back of the head, twice, walking to an empty field, naked, after hiding the handgun. Any talk of tomfoolery is uncalled for and misogynist.
 
I wish I could say she stands no chance but, at this point, the people have proven to be disturbingly ok with a known criminal take the presidency as long its not "the other guy" that they dont like. Also you want freebies

Its not just in America but everywhere.

Sometimes I wonder if America would have been better off if Hillary won, because, hear me, shit would be so bad in those years that people would have already gotten the message and that other "trump guy" would have been preferable. So the "orange man bad" narrative wouldnt have stuck as strongly as it did.
If Hillary had gotten in the media wouldn't have said a damn thing just like they did for Obama and everyone knows it. Unlike Biden, Hillary's proven time and time again that she's willing and ready to kill anyone that causes her issues.
For the love of God, can we stop suggesting candidates who are at an age where they should realistically be looking at moving down to Florida or Arizona to look for a nice retirement community? Please?

Seriously Hillary had her best shot in 2008, but Obama won the primary instead of her, because he actually had charisma, and didn't have a visible seething hatred of anyone who wasn't him. At this point, another Clinton run is just pointless. The democrats are in a weird spot where all their top stars are either young as fuck and starting their careers, or older than dirt. They don't particularly have a good stable in between those two categories that are particularly viable on a national stage.
The DNC has no stable of candidates in that middle tier area specifically because Hillary Clinton made it a point post 2004 to gut the machines that would have allowed anyone but her to rise up. Remember how Howard Dean fucked off after his 2004 run permanently? Obama was a fluke, and even when he got in office she never really let go of those reins.
 
The DNC has no stable of candidates in that middle tier area specifically because Hillary Clinton made it a point post 2004 to gut the machines that would have allowed anyone but her to rise up. Remember how Howard Dean fucked off after his 2004 run permanently? Obama was a fluke, and even when he got in office she never really let go of those reins.
Pelosi has done the same on the congressional end, and most of her top allies are around her age as well. Once the old guard dies off or has to retire in a few years, I suspect things will be very interesting at the DNC.
 
Pelosi has done the same on the congressional end, and most of her top allies are around her age as well. Once the old guard dies off or has to retire in a few years, I suspect things will be very interesting at the DNC.
They must really be banking on those immortality treatments coming through.
 
I've argued for this exact thing in multiple venues. It'll never happen because the political class knows that everybody hates their fucking guts and without the ability to tell them to fuck off for good, we're stuck with whatever shit options the Uniparty offers each cycle.

We have that ability right now.

It's called "Violence"

Magical thing, solves problems like this real nice.
 
Assuming Trump won't be at 2024 (which I doubt because he will run again) I would rather vote for Satan himself. Satan could burst out of the ground in the middle of Times Square, incinerate millions of people, have Hitler and Stalin and chairman Mao as his team, and openly rape and devour a newborn baby and would STILL vote for Satan over Hillary.
 
whoever wins, we lose.
And I'm just baffled at how many people Seriously. Do. Not. Understand. This. Concept.

Man, the Deep State really wants that war against Russia, don't they?
What better way to get rid of all the conservatives than to send them to a radioactive Moscow?

Aside from all that we really need to stop putting senile clueless boomers in charge of everything. The coronavirus isn't doing its fucking job properly.
 
She's kinda in the Democrat catbird seat, though isn't she? She could always do that Machiavellian shit. All she has to do is just be less terrible than Joe Biden. Or not even - just promise to be less terrible! And how hard is that? Anyone could run on the "Not the Biden administration" platform and win in 2024. "Sick of inflation? Tired of food shortages? Completely over the political overreaction to Wu Flu? Vote for me!" They've got their voter base so operantly conditioned that all they have to do is offer fewer electric shocks and the whole party will fall in line. All the while, the #foreverblue crowd is pointing at the right saying "Psh, 'zero electric shocks' is not a sustainable policy! They're crazy!"

It'd be funny to see her come in as the Feyd-Rautha to Biden's Beast Rabban.
 
Back
Top Bottom