Will Hillary Clinton Run again in 2020
Hillary has hinted and has been fundraising in the last month, which some say indicates she is preparing for another run at President Trump. Others say she's just trying to make it look like she's a candidate to keep the law off of her tail.
Thoughts?Why shouldn't Hillary run again in 2020? She already beat Bozo Trump by about 3 million votes which is pretty easy to do and if not for Russian espionage against the USA and infiltration of our electoral process, he would have never won the electoral college:
For someone who calls themselves a "journalist" in their profile, you seem unable to answer even the simplest questions without a snarky remark. I'm wondering if it's even possible for you to answer a question without propaganda or smearing someone?
I can only assume this "stand up act" you perform daily is to get hits and earn money on HP. I see people just like you every day in the comments sections in other new sites. Problem with that kind of approach in my opinion is that no one takes you serious. Maybe try an argument with facts and details.
Here, I'll help correct your response:
Why shouldn't Hillary run again in 2020? She did win the popular vote, however in the United States, we elect our President by Electoral College votes and if she put some hard work into campaigning in the purple states, she might have even won.Snarky? Maybe, and who deserves it more than Bozo the racist who has degraded this once great nation into a 3rd rate dictatorship?
Propaganda? Nope, perhaps you should re-read my last comment and tell me what part of it is untrue or 'propaganda' as you falsely
claim:Obviously you feel it's acceptable to continue with the falsehoods and name calling - the American economy is better than it's ever been and you deem it third world.
Propaganda is citing unproved so-called Russian collusion Jake - by definition, propaganda is information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
All you need to do is show some proof of this so-called infiltration - BUT, since no one else in the entire Federal Government can prove it, I'm betting you aren't able to either. Proof is something that holds up in court, not just what some other politician says.
Waiting for proof.....By now, after about 4 months of membership, everyone should understand that I always have facts to back up my comments:
Issuing unlawful orders to separate innocent children from their parents and then actually caging them like Adolf Hitler would do and degrading the CIA, FBI and law enforcement while cowering to our enemy Vladimir Putin are just 2 examples of Mr. Trump's 3rd rate dictatorship:
Our once great economy is now in chaotic decline under Mr. Trump's insanity, the greatest point drop in the stock market occurred just 5 or so months ago and companies are exiting the USA for foreign lands to avoid paying Mr. Trump's massive job killing tax hike:
"Harley-Davidson, Blaming E.U. Tariffs, Will Move Some Production Out of U.S."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/busi … riffs.html
All U. S. intelligence sources have arrived at the logical conclusion that Russia infiltrated our democracy in favor of their poodle Bozo Trump: Maybe that's why he feels the need to insanely attack our courageous law enforcement agencies like a ghoulish drooling orange creature almost every day:
"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election in order to increase political instability in the United States and to damage Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign by bolstering the candidacies of Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_i … _electionsAs I said - no proof of anything Jake.
Wikipedia is not a credible source seeing that anyone with an account can make changes to an entry. Seriously, I didn't think anyone would even attempt to cite it anymore. Almost as funny as people using the left wing site snopes to fact check.
The economy is thundering at a pace near post-war recovery periods and you cherry pick a single story and call it consensus - I suggest you look further than your preferred propaganda websites and read actual financial and economic data. Here's a couple of examples:
Bloomberg says - "during Trump’s 16 months in office. Jobless rates among minorities are at or near record lows, openings are at an all-time high and there are more positions available than there are unemployed." Expansion is averaging 2.4% (you need to go back to the early 1960's to see comparable growth.) Unemployment in May was 3.8% (hasn't been that low in 50 years) Plus there are millions of open jobs in America.
Turning to another point - The Stock Market has always operated under the Random Walk theory Jake - I suggest you research it and you'll understand how it works rather than just basing your assumptions that it's directly tied to the economy. "A “random walk” is a statistical phenomenon where a variable follows no discernible trend and moves seemingly at random. The random walk theory as applied to trading, most clearly laid out by Burton Malkiel, an economics professor at Princeton University, posits that the price of securities moves randomly (hence the name of the theory), and that, therefore, any attempt to predict future price movement, either through fundamental or technical analysis, is futile." In layman terms, the market has millions of variables that influence it (including a host of variables outside the nation and outside of any American politician's control) - therefore it's impossible to predict how trading will occur and when.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r … lk-theory/
I'd love to discuss economics at length with you - what's your degree in Jake? Where did you go to college? You still haven't answered my previous question on your journalism credentials. It doesn't even need to be on this forum - you choose the venue. I'm pretty sure I can hold my own in the debate.
Border enforcement laws are laws - I think you should do some reading so you have a better understanding of US Immigration code (focus on ACT 235 - you'll get a richer understanding of how the US Attorney General makes the calls on what can and can't be done) - illegal aliens crossing illegally into America have no rights other than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and Miranda rights - Now, once the criminal illegals are inside the US border, they do get more rights, but at the border...not happening. Your emotional rhetoric sounds nice, but it isn't anything else. And by the way, there were family separations and children being kept in cages under former President Obama as well - but you probably don't care to hear about that since it deflates your narrative.
Here's the link to the entire US Immigration and Nationality Act in case you weren't able to find it.
https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB … B/act.html
I can appreciate the fact that you despise President Trump - we're all entitle to our own opinions.
She is not a viable candidate for president and she also is not a viable candidate for prison.
If I were in her shoes, I'd be glad to be out of politics. It takes years off your life.
Frankly, I don't know why anyone wants to be in politics. Even the local politicians I know get hammered all of the time by extremists on both sides.
It's getting worse now with the violence, the protests at people's homes, doxing, and threats on people's lives - there are days when the shadow of the third world looms heavy.
If I were in her shoes, I would be glad to sit back and enjoy their money. They weren't always wealthy.
I think they spend at a pretty heavy rate - likely they "need" more cash
I think that her time has past. The faction of the party that she represented doesnot constitute a winning combination for the Dems right now.Only our enemies would have their hearts lifted with her candidacy.
Credence, I'm sorry to say that I have to agree with you. She has reached the age to retire gracefully. Also, despite the denials, I believe that she has some health problems that would prevent her from another run. She would have gotten a lot more votes except for that "open-door" policy. I can't go along with that. I think we have to have more control over our borders, although I don't agree with a wall and separating families either. There has got to be a better way.
Yes, she has lost twice, and with that comes a sort of jinx. Despite contrary reports, most libs are not for open borders, but as you say there has to be another way, beside the manner in which Trump is handling this. I have mentioned before the option of raising penalties against those that hire illegals. But, the GOP do not want to ruffle the feathers of those that are well a large part of its constituency that would be the result of such a course.
It would be crazy to run her again. But then again, the DNC has lost its mind and so may go for it. I was a Democrat from 2004 until 2016 when the party went off the deep end.
Many people have decided to #walkaway from whats left of the democrat party.
In my opinion hillary was mentally and physically unfit to run in the first place. Being unfit, however makes her future actions unpredictable. She may want to run as a teapot, who knows.
As she was being dragged unconscious from van to van, as msm was dragging her through winning poll to poll and debate question to question. Throwing her glass ceiling victory parties the night before. The woman couldnt even cheat Bernie to the top. Very sad to watch.
But who knows these things for sure? If 12 Russians had not been given Podestas Spirit Cooking Recipes, hillary might be pilfering WH furniture as we speak.
I don't think so that Hilary Clinton will be the next president.
RouterLogin
I think it would be in the best interests of the party to quietly suggest she disappear into the sunset.
And perhaps in the best interests of the country if she runs?
I would like to think people are smart enough to, by now, know she is not fit to be president but there is so much going on that points otherwise..... I'd rather see them field a candidate I can understand why someone would vote for them.
Honestly, the only reason anyone seems to be considering her for another run is the lack of another viable candidate (name recognition, fundraising abilities, etc.) I think people see Joe Biden as a liability with female voters because of his excessive touching. Liz Warrren is polarized because of the Native American issue. It will be interesting to see who gets the nod. Maybe feel the Bern?
I agree Warren is polarizing in part because of her battles with Trump. Otherwise, Senators Brown, Harris and Gillibrand all have ambition and credibility.
"I agree Warren is polarizing in part because of her battles with Trump"
I don't know, I think that makes her more qualified rather than less. She distinguishes herself as the polar opposite of Trump along with having an impeccable Progressive record makes her the ideal candidate, in my opinion, of course. Regardless, I would virtually beg her to run in 2020, offering my full support.What do you think would "put her over the top" and gain the support of the entire Party? She's weak on climate change issues and, nothing personal, but being an East Coast Liberal wouldn't seem to appeal to much of the heartland of America. Plus, it's not commonly known, but she used to be a Republican
What do you think would "put her over the top" and gain the support of the entire Party?
Interesting, RJ. Yes the Clinton faction failed miserably. I tell you that if Sanders were the nominee, he would have defeated Trump. Clinton had been a changeling. Too busy trying to suck up to conservatives, who could never get the message. She straddled the fence and was found lukewarm to everyone's palate.
There are many things that she is STRONG about that allow most of us to overlook a facet or two.
As for being an east coast liberal, don't forget that a young "overeducated" black guy won the election not once but twice. The voting public can be quite fickle. The electorate is not your grandfather's, the increasing significance of minority votes is moving us away from the model of what the "heartland of America" would find palatable. How else would a Barack Obama become president? Ms. Warren appeals to me and others like me, so who really bothers considering what the "heartland" wants?
We all can change and she has made a genuine and true transition to the "light side" and I am proud to call her one of our own.I agree that Bernie would have beaten Trump - it must be driving the Party leadership crazy too since they basically were against him from the beginning.
The young black man you refer to was Hawaiian - a far cry from the East Coast Liberal mold.
Pitch me on her virtues - especially ones that would sway independent voters to give her their support.I agree that Bernie would have beaten Trump - it must be driving the Party leadership crazy too since they basically were against him from the beginning.
I was with Bernie in my rage against the "machine" that brings a losing candidate to the nomination. But, when compared with Trump, there had to be no choice. I was furious with black folks for giving her the victory in so many states, when clearly the writing was on the wall that screaming for a different course.
-----------------
The young black man you refer to was Hawaiian - a far cry from the East Coast Liberal mold.
But this guy did not fit the mold, he was accused of not being an American citizen, but Kenyan, instead. Not being in the allAmerican mold, of say a Ronald Reagan had to keep these American Gothic types awake at night.
--------
Pitch me on her virtues - especially ones that would sway independent voters to give her their support.
It will take me time to gather them all. Being like Bernie Sanders, Ms. Warren is an uncompromising voice for the middle and working classes. She has a resume that "walks the talk".Please consider the “fake Native American” narrative in the pitch. I’d like someone on the opposite side’s opinion
I know that conservatives like to make hay over this kind of stuff. I don't care if she is or is not Native American, she is American to me in all the ways that matter, taking it to the righties with both barrels a blazin
I can appreciate how strongly YOU support her, but she needs to convince the independent voters that she's the best answer for America. As far as us "righties," we'll keep our heads down
RJ, WE on the left support her. Remember, Trump did not win the popular vote, so it was not a landslide. Any Democrat with fewer negatives could have defeated a coarse and unsophisticated man like Trump, handily.
Clinton made the same classic mistakes in 2016 that she made in 2008 and no one is going to get a third bite at the Apple. Even though that is what Republicans crave for because it will guarantee Trump another term. Well, no such luck.
The states of Penn., Wis., and Michigan are Democratic strongholds, the GOP would be presumptious if they think that these states are going for Trump again if he does not deliver on his prosperity talk and job promises.
Trump is very divisive and he is in the most danger of not getting a second term since GHW Bush in 1992. We Dems are going to reorganize, excite our bases around a winning candidate and I am not concerned about appealing to conservatives. Independents are a different constuency. She will have an easier time, MS. Warren, of convincing independents that they can do better than Trump. As I said, the heartland no longer rules.....
Boy this seems like a reasonable discussion.
Should Hillary run again: I certainly hope not. That said, Republicans should welcome her with open arms seeing as it all but assures Trump of another term.
And let me get this straight, Joe Biden is a liability because of excessive touching? Didn't Trump prove that excessive touching isn't a liability?Clarify please - the grab them by the p**** incident? Or something different?
Joe has had his hands on some fairly young girls and many people I know find it a bit creepy, just sayingYes, RJ, the grab them by the p**** incident and the reports of Trump walking in on naked Miss America contestants. The porn star sex sessions.
But fundamentally, I agree with you. If you show me believable proof of anyone putting their hands on anyone else without their permission or to cop a feel, I will not vote for that person. Frankly, I hadn't heard or seen anything about that with Biden. His problem has always been his big mouth and that seems to be a non-issue suddenly.Here are some examples from a quick web search - it's a story that many have glossed over, BUT, if he would decide to run, I'm certain it would become a liabilty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy07yHAgM4E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIpEffmH3Xs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkFPtwb2kMkI watched the first video. It's just ridiculous and not proof of anything. I'm pretty sure you could splice just about any video of any public official into a really damning thing.
Are you really saying you watched those and they affect your opinion of Biden.
Anybody who made as many public appearances as he did is going to have videos of him hugging people. Given how loud it is at these events, he's going to have video of him whispering in ears. You're going to condemn him for what's in those videos? Because they look creepy?
I guarantee you, give me enough footage of you or of me, for that matter, and I can get somebody to cut something together that makes us look creepy.
Instead of a YouTube video, how about an investigation? How about a complaint against him from somebody?
This isn't even a serious conversation. If this is the standard of "proof" you require to malign somebody, then it's impossible to have a productive dialogue.
Just to go off topic, but Trump fires Comey for investigating him, admits he fired Comey for investigating him, and Republicans can't even fathom that there's obstruction of justice or possible collusion with Russia, but if I show you a video of Joe Biden hugging somebody or whispering in an ear, that's proof that's he's unfit to be President?Hi there Crankalicious, except for your "off-topic" segment, I completely agree with your comment.
Admittedly I am biased, I have known Joe Biden, casually, (as in Boy Scout Troop event visits), for a long time. He is what he is. He will misspeak, (politically incorrect), at times, and he is a touchy and up-close person. But... that is just his manner, there is nothing nefarious or malignant about it.
Those video links were just purely ideological anti-Biden efforts. They were proof of nothing more than the fact that Joe Biden not a politically correct politician.
GA, my reasoning for going "off-topic" was to discuss a standard for proof. What standard are people using. So the same person who believes that Joe Biden is unfit to be President based on three YouTube videos also believes Trump to be completely innocent by ignoring what would seem to be a much more compelling set of facts.
So, on one side, you have a narrative with a pretty clear set of events (I won't call them facts), but the interpretation is to deny a pretty compelling conclusion (obstruction of justice - just saying, if you fire the FBI director because he's investigating you, that's the very definition of obstruction of justice. If you fire him for investigating your campaign and several members of that campaign have already admitted guilt, that would also be the very definition of obstruction of justice). With those events, you won't even admit the possibility. But a few videos of Joe Biden being affectionate - in a public setting no less with millions of people watching - and the assumption is that he's unfit to be President and guilty of sexual assault.
That said, I'm glad you agreed with the conclusion that the videos show nothing and are an extremely low standard of proof.I did understand the purpose of your comment's "off-topic" segment Crankilicious, I just didn't want to jump into that part of the conversation.
I only wanted to add a voice that agrees with the ridiculousness of these Biden "handsy" accusations as being sexually and inappropriately driven.
Neither side has a monopoly on nutty partisan character assassinations, but sometimes my restraint fails me and I can't resist jumping in. ;-)
GA
Credence, I agree it makes her more qualified with Democrats and others on the left.
The downside of being polarized is that it runs the risk of alienating independents and others in the center who are needed to win a national election.
I don't understand all the tempest in a teapot over her saying her family claims to have Native American heritage. People tell her to "get a DNA test" but that doesn't prove anything. Anyone can be a tribal member and have Native American heritage without its showing up in a DNA test. I know several people, who have the heritage, but our dinky DNA tests that are so touted on Ancestry and other sites aren't sensitive enough to detect the genetics. One of them even states "maybe your ancestor was a white person who was adopted into the tribe." Maybe, but a tribal member was a tribal member, regardless of bloodline.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe she used it get a job at Harvard and she has no tribal affiliations - those of us on the right see it as suspicious that she fights it so hard. She is being challenged by a real Native American who has also stated that Warren has no links to any tribe.
Look at all the "African Americans" who have no tribal ties to Africa, yet they get in as minorities on color alone.
Maybe, and this is just a random thought....put someone forward who actually has a unique mind which puts loyalty to the people over special interests and party loyalty?
Sorry. I forgot we were talking about the Democratic party. Never mind.And you can offer evidence that the Republican Party puts loyalty to the people first? Especially Women?
LOL I don't think there is a politician on the Hill that puts the people before the party.
But haven't a clue what the women comment was about, unless it was about putting the lives of innocent, helpless children ahead of selfishness desires of (female) mothers?
I can't think of a quicker way to a democrat loss than "feel the Burn". I don't care if he is a member of the Democrat Party, he isn't a democrat, he is a socialist.
Do you believe he would have beaten Trump?
No, I do not. I think he had a very vocal minority among Democrats. The squeeky wheel gets the grease but not necessarily the votes.
On the contrary, I think that Trump was so inherently a toxic candidate that only Hillary Clinton with the numbers of skeletons in her closet could have been defeated by Trump. Bernie had a wider constituency, if not "the machine" among us democrats and would have defeated Trump in my opinion.
Is it possible that Hillary Clinton is thinking of making a third run for the presidency because there are NO Democrats who could realistically defeat Trump? He could only lose if his base leaves him, and they are solidly behind him. The Republican party is also growing with Trump as president.
"While most Obama to Trump voters once identified as Democrats, a majority now identify as Republicans. Since 2011, there has been a 28 percent decline in Democratic identification and a 43 percent increase in Republican identification among these voters.'
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publica … ty-hoppersThat's basically what I've been hearing from my Democrat contacts.
The Republican Party is now the Trump Party - the old guard doesn't have much power anymore aside from the few hanging-on deep stater's and the resist crowd (like Romney, McCain, and a few other sore losers)
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago
0In the end , after all of this party horse shyte has run it's course , It will become known through the entire DOJ just how corrupt the Clinton Mafia is and was in decimating the integrity of the DNC alone . Say nothing about the utter incompetence surrounding the Russia investigations and their own involvement [Clintons]. After the news media has ended it's love affair with Pravdaism , after the democrats have coagulated some sense of party , probably after Hillary herself comes clean about her own political blundering , Democratic voters may come to know just how evil she is ,
At this point give her a walker and stand back , Nothing she will do or say surprises me . Does Hillary want to run?
Does Hillary feel the need to validate herself by finally running a winning presidential campaign?
Does Hillary want what she feels she has deserved for so long?
To those questions, I would answer in the affirmative.
Will she run in 2020, however, well... no — I don't see that happening.
The race for the Democratic nomination is going to be packed. The "new guard" will be there with Harris and Castro. The absolute unknowns such as Pete Buttigieg will be there. The old establishment may be there with Biden and Warren. Not to mention good old Bernie probably making a reappearance of his own. Add a half a dozen other ambitious faces to the mix and that will be the stage for the Democratic primaries.
There are just too many fresh fish and old fish for the DNC to green light a third Hillary trip to the batter's box.
When you add the scrutiny that a Hillary 2020 campaign would bring to the DNC after the allegations of how they secretly coordinated with the Clinton campaign in 2016 during the primaries to the determent of Bernie, it's highly unlikely that Tom Perez or the rest of the DNC leadership would look too kindly on any attempt by Hillary to get in the race. Why stir up old dirt?
Additionally, let's be honest, Hillary is not an effective campaigner. She lacks the charisma and energy to be one. Obama capitalized on that in 2008 and Trump did so in 2016.
The whole "Clinton" mystique doesn't have the power that it did in the past. Bill, instead of being a powerful proxy campaigner as he was in years past, is now more of a liability.
Would Hillary love to run again? Yes.
Would Hillary run without assurances from the party that she will be the "anointed" or "defacto" nominee from the beginning? No.
In 2008 and 2016 she, in all likelihood, received such assurances even though fate had other plans. In 2020 she would not be welcomed by the DNC, much less "anointed" before anyone gets out of the gate.https://www-192-168-100-1.com/
https://192-168-l0-1.club
Thanks for the best blog. it was very useful for me.keep sharing such ideas in the future as well.https://192-168-l-l.us
Thanks for sharing. I found a lot of interesting information here. A really good post, very thankful and hopeful that you will write many more posts like this one
https://192-168-l-l.us/192-168-10-1/
https://192-168-l-l.us/192-168-254-254/
Related Discussions
- 27
Who will WIN the American Presidency- Clinton OR Trump?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
Who will WIN the American Presidency- Clinton OR Trump?
- 624
Just curious. Who would you trust to defend our country against our enemies- Hi
by Faith Reaper 8 years ago
Just curious. Who would you trust to defend our country against our enemies- Hillary or Trump?I am conducting my own little poll here of sorts, as I am just curious who would you trust to defend our country against our enemies and why - Hillary or Trump?
- 5
What is YOUR ASSESSMENT of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate & ....as
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
What is YOUR ASSESSMENT of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate & ....as a....PERSON?
- 32
Now that the Electoral College has confirmed Trump, can the nation start to heal
by Ralph Schwartz 8 years ago
Now that the Electoral College has confirmed Trump, can the nation start to heal and work together?The Electoral College has confirmed Donald Trump as the next President. Faithless Elector counts were 2 from Trump's totals and surprisingly 4 from Clinton's totals. Even arch-rival John...
- 220
How will the Left react when Hillary Clinton loses the election to Trump?
by Ralph Schwartz 6 years ago
How will the Left react when Hillary Clinton loses the election to Trump?Even with her cronies fixing the polling, she's declining and Trump is rising. Trump is moving into new territory, talking directly to Democrat voters such as blacks; people she has been taking for granted as...
- 27
Even UK Conservatives Cannot Support Mr Trump
by Greensleeves Hubs 8 years ago
The Conservative Party has always been the major right of centre party in the UK - the party of Churchill, Thatcher, Cameron and current Prime Minister Theresa May. A party which believes in strong fiscal policy and freedom of the individual. A party, most of whose members believe in immigration...