Skip to main content

Hillary says no...

Depending on your source... Hillary says no to a run in the 2020 presidential election.
Certainly her chances this late in the game would be low and the motivation isn't there.

From a March 2019 interview she said:

Comments (20)

She'd not be the 1st pol to switch position on seeking an office.

I suspect much depends on how things go with the "Gutsy Woman" book release & obligatory tour.
She may(!) be hoping that'll generate a RUN, HILLARY, RUN! cheering grass roots movement that would see her as an alternative to the uninspiring yawn field of 'Crat contenders killing one another off in the circular firing squad Donkey Debates.

Another possibility -
'Publicans KNOW The Don's gonna be their guy.
Significant numbers of them may cross over to vote for Hildebeest in 'Crat primaries in open primary states if they think she'll be the weakest opponent against The Don.

You know.
Like in '16 when 'Crats knew Hildy was locked in & they crossed over to vote for The Don in 'Publican primaries so she'd have a walk-over straw candidate on her way to fulfilling her Manifest Destiny to become 1st Woman Prez applause ... shock

I STRONGLY!!! b'lieve that's a primary cause of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) in many folks.
They voted for him in 'Publican primaries & blame/loathe themselves for the part they(!) played in his ascendence to POTUS.
frustrated

Whatever.
We'll know more come Primary Season, you betcha!

cowboy
HC would have made a good president. Warren will make a better one. peace
Drcoctail
Lol.....God, I hope she runs. It would be the ultimate put down for the left. Imagine....Warren and Clinton in the same race.....doh

cool
The biggest erosion in a political party that I've ever witnessed, was the election of a lifetime scammer (Trump) with the help of a flood of misinformation spread by the Russians along with the candidate's demagoguery with subsequent multiple violations of both the emolments clause and REQUESTING help from foreign advesarial countries to meddle with election campaigns. This literally trump's (pun intended) Nixon's previous low point.
Drcoctail
Hmmmconfused The Supreme Court already ruled on the 'emoluments' clause. Can't go no higher Soupy, it's the law...not an opinion.....lol

cool
"God, I hope she runs. It would be the ultimate put down for the left."

I've discussed this with political savvy Lefties IRL & they're in complete(!) agreement with you, Doc handshake

Their problem is that none of the other underwhelming 'Crat contenders are appreciably better yawn
Unless there's some under the radar out lier out there, they don't have a knight/knightess to effectively carry their National Ticket banner.

Add to that that the main achievement of ongoing impeachment efforts is to augment The Don's/RNC already unprecedentedly bulging War Chests ($$$$)...
"The two entities (The Don's re-election campaign & RNC) have surpassed the $100 million mark for two quarters in a row after raising $108 million in the second quarter. ..."

...and the situation confronting 'Crat political strategerists must appear bleak.
moping

That, of course, assumes 'Crats HAVE political strategerists and/or they're sane.
Given past examples of their political acumen laugh that assumption is questionable.

Hell! They're still in damage control over Hildy's "Deplorables" gaffe foot in mouth & alienating the Bernie Bros with their rigged '16 primaries frustrated

If (when?) The Don is given a 2nd term it'll be presumptuous of him to claim victory.
It'll be more like the 'Crats will have done all in their power to LOSE moping

And we're to believe 'Crats are the party of thmart edumacated folks?!?! nerd
rolling on the floor laughing rolling on the floor laughing

cowboy
Drcoctail
And btw, when you're in first place I wouldn't consider that erosion.
Now your party is so fractured that it's unlikely they won't be deemed relevant until you and I are dead....

cool
^^^^
rolling on the floor laughing
Possibly so, Doc cheers

cowboy
In fairness to 'Crat future prospects -
History indicates that things can turn around remarkably quickly.

After Nixon's resignation & Ford's blanket pardon, some opined that the 'Publican Party might go the way of the Whigs violin wave ~~~~~~~~~~ angel
That was in '76.

A mere four years later - The Reagan Revolution.

A solid & resounding shellacking in '20 might jar the 'Crats back to reality.
Let the ol' timers (Hildy, Pocahontas, Sleepy Joe sleep The Bern) finally(!) pass from the scene sad flower

Get some new blood with ideas other than - "Orange Man - BAD! devil " ... "Everyone Gets Free Stuff Free santa waving " ... "Vote According Y'all's Identity Politics Assigned Victim-Group crying " ... and they might get things turned around. Maybe dunno

What makes it tough for them is The Don has staked out a lotta ol' time Yellow Dog 'Crat turf - notably blue collar pocketbook issues.
The Blue Wall Rust Belt States may prove difficult to get back into the 'Crat fold.

cowboy
epirb
Shes going to run alright , she's building expectation by saying she's not . Trump thinks she's running . He's usually a week or two ahead of the news .
IF...It appears The Don will be unbeatable -
It might be best if the 'Crats go with Sleepy Joe sleep as the sacrificial lamb.

Why?
Women are 0 for 3 on National Tickets (Ferraro, Palin, Hildy...not including Victoria Woodhull vs U.S. Grant back in the day wow ).
Hanging a 4th loss on 'em - and back to back losses heading a National Ticket - could make it difficult for ANY woman to be seriously considered for a National Ticket - Presidential Pariahs talk to hand one might say.

Better to give the gals a break comfort rather than hang that albatross around their collective neck.
IMO

cowboy
professor
"Victoria Claflin Woodhull, later Victoria Woodhull Martin (September 23, 1838 – June 9, 1927), was an American leader of the women's suffrage movement. In 1872, she ran for President of the United States. While many historians and authors agree that Woodhull was the first woman to run for President of the United States, some have questioned that priority given issues with the legality of her run. They disagree with classifying it as a true candidacy because she was younger than the constitutionally mandated age of 35. (Woodhull's 35th birthday was in September 1873, seven months after the March inauguration). However, election coverage by contemporary newspapers does not suggest age was a significant issue; this may, however, be due to the fact that no one took the candidacy seriously. ..."

cowboy
epirb
Hillary thinks she can beat Trump again

I think she can "do" it , she should double down on doing it
Mad's comment on Willy's "Hillary Seeks Re-election" Blog...

Marchmadness03•9 hrs ago•central, Florida USA
Hillary.............not a pantsuit chance in HELL. frustrated confused barf barf :barf barf barf barf

rolling on the floor laughing
cowboy
If y'all think mad was harsh...this on Sky News Australia -

very mad
See comments on the vid...
"Mental illness is clearly an issue with the bitter old woman."

"Hillary will stop trying to be President only when she's dead."
More...
rolling on the floor laughing

cowboy
Dopey - I don't have a party. There are few things more stupid than being loyal to a political party,
each of which has agendas. My agenda is a better USA. That certainly does NOT mean Trump.
I don't recall the Supreme court ruling on emoluments clause violations going on very recently.
Indeed, that which was previously thrown out has been re-instated.



and here's an article from yesterday;

Well, we all know how the Trumpettes love to twist the truth to bolster up their agenda. laugh laugh
r - it is amazing how many lies they tell, sort of like Trump.
No sense of honesty, nor decency. thumbs down
Drcoctail
Here you go Soupy. The last ruling by SCOTUS on emoluments:

The requirement is absolute—no litigant can bring a case without showing he has suffered harm, as per Article III of the constitution—but it is notoriously indeterminate. The Supreme Court’s three-part test from a 1992 case says a plaintiff must have sustained an “injury in fact” that is “concrete” and “particularised” and must be “actual” rather than hypothetical; that the defendant must have plausibly contributed to the alleged harm;

Now the current claim of violations have yet to come before SCOTUS. A federal appeals court dismissed two lawsuits claiming Trumps hotels were in violation of the emoluments clause.



"— In a legal victory for President Trump, a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit claiming that he had violated the Constitution by collecting profits from government guests at his hotel in the nation’s capital."

"A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., found that the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia had no legal standing to sue Mr. Trump.

The judges roundly rejected the premise of the case, which claimed that the Trump International Hotel, blocks from the White House, is unfairly siphoning off business from hotels in which the local jurisdictions have a financial interest. The lawsuit, which alleges violations of the Constitution’s anti-corruption, or “emoluments,” clauses, was about to enter the evidence-gathering phase."

“The District and Maryland’s interest in enforcing the emoluments clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the president is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies,” the panel wrote in its decision."

Essentially they are saying the same thing.... you liberals are betting the latest narrative will succeed to convict President Trump of a crime he hasn't commited. And as always the left with the help of the media shouts "He's gulity" but you don't bring it to court because you lack any evidence. Repetition and headlines don't make it the truth. Now if Maryland and the District think they have a winnable case bring it to The Supreme Court again.

cool
Dopey - Those are 2 years old and have been overturned. Get current.

Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles?

Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles? Have you written blogs that you'd like to share with other members? Posting your blogs shows your skill and creativity and helps members get to know you better. Your blog will appear on the Connecting Singles Blogs page and also in a link on your profile page. Click here to post a blog »

Attention: Report Abuse. If this blog is inappropriate please report abuse.
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
We use cookies to ensure that you have the best experience possible on our website. Read Our Privacy Policy Here