This photo two days ago is not a matter of a "broken toe"...
Posted on 10/28/2017 10:15:58 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Protests to the contrary notwithstanding, Hillary Clinton is still interested in being a presidential candidate in 2020.
Further evidence of this emerged this week with a Washington Post piece headlined, “Hillary 2020? Trump better hope not.”
It then goes on to outline why Clinton “would be well-positioned to win in a rematch.”
In response to an Oct. 16 tweet in which Trump said he’d been asked whether “Crooked Hillary Clinton is going to run in 2020 …” and said, “I hope so!” Michael Brenes, a historian and senior archivist at Yale University, said not so fast.
“Putting aside the reckless braggadocio – and blatant sexism – inherent in such a statement, the entire scenario seems absurd,” Brenes wrote. He did not explain what was blatantly sexist about Trump predicting he would win a rematch.
Few expect Clinton to run, he said, and most doubt she could win the Democratic nomination if she did. Clinton herself has said she has no plans to run.
“Trump should be careful what he wishes for,” Brenes wrote. “Clinton might not be a potential candidate now, but the political winds can change quickly. Recent American history is rife with presidential contenders who lost the primary or general election and then went on to become a candidate in subsequent elections.”
Yes, many losing candidates do try their luck later in other elections. But at the presidential level, losing becomes its own impediment. People don’t want to back a candidate who has run and lost before, as Mitt Romney found out abruptly from the colder-than-ice reception he received when he floated the idea of jumping into the 2016 race.
Clinton lost twice when heavily favored against political novices when her supposed advantage – in-depth knowledge of policy in a variety of areas – ended up helping little. There is evidence her campaign and the Democratic National Committee colluded to shut out Bernie Sanders.
Not only that, she lost in both cases because she ran badly managed campaigns that misallocated resources, could not settle a consistent message and were not able to portray Clinton in the best light. A scandal that was not present even on Election Day emerged that likely would weaken whatever enthusiasm there might be for her campaign.
Brenes said all this can be overcome because of Trump’s “abysmally low approval ratings and inability to deliver on signature campaign promises (building a border wall, ending NAFTA and repealing the Affordable Care Act, to name a few), and Clinton could once more emerge as a serious challenger.”
Meanwhile, samples of what the wall might look like are up now near San Diego along the Mexican border. NAFTA is being renegotiated, and Trump, with his recent executive orders, has, for all intents and purposes, repealed Obamacare anyway.
Brenes’ point is that Clinton still “retains significant support within her party, and Democrats currently have no clear front-runner to replace her.” No one questions the Clintons could raise significant money for such a run, and Brenes claims she would have a “vibrant, large, motivated base of supporters angry at Trump, Russian interference in the election and former FBI director James Comey – in their minds, the collective robbers of Clinton’s presidency.”
Trump could find himself in trouble in 2020 if an unpopular war breaks out or the economy falters, and voters “come to believe they made a mistake and look to Clinton to rectify the wrong,” Brenes said.
But “like Nixon and Reagan, Clinton can win the presidency in 2020 thanks to a combination of demographic and electoral shifts among voters and uncertainty about their futures.”
This is an example of a go-against-the-grain story designed to provoke thought. The writer is given some leeway to get the discussion flowing. But when you have someone declaring she would have a “vibrant, large, motivated base of supporters” doubly angry at Trump, you’re substituting wishful thinking for clear and hope for reality.
Trumps comments were just as sexy as racist. /s
Author a total wacko.
What Jimmy Carter said about Ted Kennedy in 1980.
She’s in my Dead Pool for next year.
She won’t be left enough for them. They think they have a lock in 2020, they will nominate a full on Maoist. Probably Warren and an Hispanic VP.
She wants to be not only the first woman in history, but the first person in history to earn the honorific “Three time failed presidential candidate”
Jim Traficant ran from his jail cell.
She’ll be dead by then.
“...Trump, with his recent executive orders, has, for all intents and purposes, repealed Obamacare anyway.”
This comment is not true. EO can only do so much.
One of the key and many times unsung elements of Trump and Deplorables, is that the coalition he put together has the potential to unite heretofore un-united individuals. Minorities of all stripes (blacks, hispanics, gays), union guys, and others used by the statists for decades suddenly seem willing to jump on the Trump Train. While many Patriots may chafe at the thought of working alongside some of these masses, I'd rather have Peter Thiel and Ben Carson in my boat than McCain or Mitt or Kasich.
Yes, Trump won the Electoral College by a wide margin yet the vote margin of victory in PA, WI, and MI were but a few hundred thousand votes. That's too close for comfort in my book. Republican voter registrations are up in many key states. This is a very positive development. However, the disarray on the left is masking movements like New Democracy, a Democrat 'centrist' project that is aiming to (re)convert lapsed Democrats. Sure, they SAY the right things, like:
On immigration, for example, Democrats should stick to their guns in supporting a humane path to legalization. But we also should take seriously public concerns about the breakdown of public order and the impact of low-skill immigrants on native workers’ jobs and pay.
But THEIR TRUE INTENTION is found right below that paragraph (emphasis added):
Most important, we need to engage voters where they live and refrain from writing any off. Even in the toughest places, rural communities and small towns, Democrats should show up and make our case. Practically speaking, we don’t need to convert GOP-leaning voters en mass, just win enough on the margins to tip elections our way.
Therefore, it is vital that we keep up our efforts to bring as many into the fold as possible. This will help not just to offset Democrat advances, but the inevitable falling away of RINOs and other third-party attempts from the likes of Willard et al.
A second coronation denied.
It is so sad that the clinton foundation totally coincidentally lost all of its billionaire donors on the same day she lost the presidency.
Even in small venues like high school gyms, Hillary could not draw a "standing room only" crowd. Where does the author of this piece imagine Hillary is going to find a large motivated base?
Meanwhile, Trump is getting his agenda items done, and on those where he has had difficulty (i.e. Obamacare), the voters are smart enough to recognize that he has jumped through hoops to get it done, but that DC insiders have blocked him at every turn.
So this piece should be filed under fiction.
HiiLIARy couldn’t win an election against Jack the Ripper
Oh, wait! It doesn't make any difference.
Bet MSM polls say it's a 95% certainty she wins...
The sky is falling...The sky is falling..
“Lets Roll!”
If WaPo is a mouthpiece for H!, and it is, and H! Is all about hubris, and she is, then this is a piece timed to respond to the possibility that she is going to finally meet her al Capone moment and with Trump in office it’s just not beyond possible
This photo two days ago is not a matter of a "broken toe"...
You neglected to include "/s" at the end...Otherwise Freeperdom might think you are on crack...{:-)
I’m so sick of seeing this f-—ing wench.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.