Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The logic is simple: Hillary Clinton is an opportunist. She badly wants to break the male-only Presidential "glass ceiling," but only if she can come away with a legacy to match it. Given Republicans abject Hatred of All Things Clinton,â„¢ I predict that Hillary Clinton will view a GOP Senate and House Majority a threat to her very ambition to actually get anything done as the first female President. The chances that Democrats retake one or both of the chambers in 2016 would be so slim, that a 2014 GOP steamroll would/will force her to retire politically instead of running for President in 2016.
No doubt about it, she's waiting on the 2014 midterms to make a decision.
The chances that Democrats retake one or both of the chambers in 2016 would be so slim, that a 2014 GOP steamroll would/will force her to retire politically instead of running for President in 2016.
I think you are wrong. Where are you getting your facts?
The chances that Democrats retake one or both of the chambers in 2016 would be so slim, that a 2014 GOP steamroll would/will force her to retire politically instead of running for President in 2016.
I think you are wrong. Where are you getting your facts?
It's a prediction, not a fact.
However, the GOP has a stranglehold on the House for at least a decade by most accounts. If the GOP takes the Senate in 2014, do you think Democrats could retake it in 2016? Would Hillary accept a divided government with the same negative results as the Barack Obama presidency? I don't think she would be inclined to take that risk.
I think her main consideration will be whether she can raise enough money. 2016 could be another Democratic wave if people are excited about voting -- regardless of whether she is on the ballot.
Do you have any polling or other data to quantify this?
Recent polling shows that independents choose Christie over Clinton by substantial margins. The idea being that an electable Republican can beat Clinton with the Independent vote.
The logic is simple: Hillary Clinton is an opportunist. She badly wants to break the male-only Presidential "glass ceiling," but only if she can come away with a legacy to match it. Given Republicans abject Hatred of All Things Clinton,™ I predict that Hillary Clinton will view a GOP Senate and House Majority a threat to her very ambition to actually get anything done as the first female President. The chances that Democrats retake one or both of the chambers in 2016 would be so slim, that a 2014 GOP steamroll would/will force her to retire politically instead of running for President in 2016.
No doubt about it, she's waiting on the 2014 midterms to make a decision.
What do you think?
Your prediction makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
If the GOP managed to take six or seven Senate seats, they would have 51 or 52 Senators.
However, were Clinton to win the Presidency in 2016, the Democrats would easily retake the Senate in 2016.
Senate elections during Presidential years do not happen in a vacuum - you need only look back to our last Presidential election to understand that. Despite the fact that the Senate field easily favored the GOP (the Democratic caucus had to defend 23 seats, compared to only 10 for the Republican caucus), even a modest 4% victory by President Obama enabled the Democrats to not only hold their own but to pick up two additional seats. Unfortunately, people who are bound and determined to learn nothing from history usually learn precisely that - nothing.
Now, fast forward to 2016. The Democrats are defending a mere 10 seats, the Republicans 24. Eight of those Democratic seats are in the bright blue states of CA, CT, HI, OR, WA, MA, MD, VT, with the other two in blue CO and NV. Meanwhile, the GOP has to defend seats in states the Democrats regularly win, such as IL, WI, IA, NH, PA, and have been winning lately (FL, OH) and that are trending blue (NC). Barring some very unusual event (ie, Clinton losing the popular vote a la Bush in 2000 but still squeaking out an electoral college win), a Clinton victory would flip a net of several Senate seats. That is simply almost certainly what would happen in conjunction with a Clinton win, given the strong tilt of the Senate field towards the Democrats.
I won't even bother addressing your delusional thesis that if it seemed likely Clinton (or any Presidential aspirant, for that matter) would have a Senate controlled by the other party, she'd just decide she doesn't want to be President.
What you're doing here is wishful thinking. You believe that Clinton, if she runs, is a strong favorite to win. You don't want that to happen, so you're flailing about to come up with some reason she doesn't run. While she might not run - I'd put in at about 80%/20% right now, given the indicators - the reason you put forth is laughable. Anyone even remotely familiar with American electoral politics can see how nonsensical it is.
Recent polling shows that independents choose Christie over Clinton by substantial margins. The idea being that an electable Republican can beat Clinton with the Independent vote.
Hilarious! You post a CNN poll from December and call it 'recent' , ignoring the real recent poll from CNN showing Clinton slaughtering Christie by 16%! My apologies, I was wrong - you're not delusional, you're just blatantly dishonest. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...clintons-gain/
Your prediction makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
If the GOP managed to take six or seven Senate seats, they would have 51 or 52 Senators.
However, were Clinton to win the Presidency in 2016, the Democrats would easily retake the Senate in 2016.
Senate elections during Presidential years do not happen in a vacuum - you need only look back to our last Presidential election to understand that. Despite the fact that the Senate field easily favored the GOP (the Democratic caucus had to defend 23 seats, compared to only 10 for the Republican caucus), even a modest 4% victory by President Obama enabled the Democrats to not only hold their own but to pick up two additional seats. Unfortunately, people who are bound and determined to learn nothing from history usually learn precisely that - nothing.
Now, fast forward to 2016. The Democrats are defending a mere 10 seats, the Republicans 24. Eight of those Democratic seats are in the bright blue states of CA, CT, HI, OR, WA, MA, MD, VT, with the other two in blue CO and NV. Meanwhile, the GOP has to defend seats in states the Democrats regularly win, such as IL, WI, IA, NH, PA, and have been winning lately (FL, OH) and that are trending blue (NC). Barring some very unusual event (ie, Clinton losing the popular vote a la Bush in 2000 but still squeaking out an electoral college win), a Clinton victory would flip a net of several Senate seats. That is simply almost certainly what would happen in conjunction with a Clinton win, given the strong tilt of the Senate field towards the Democrats.
I won't even bother addressing your delusional thesis that if it seemed likely Clinton (or any Presidential aspirant, for that matter) would have a Senate controlled by the other party, she'd just decide she doesn't want to be President.
What you're doing here is wishful thinking. You believe that Clinton, if she runs, is a strong favorite to win. You don't want that to happen, so you're flailing about to come up with some reason she doesn't run. While she might not run - I'd put in at about 80%/20% right now, given the indicators - the reason you put forth is laughable. Anyone even remotely familiar with American electoral politics can see how nonsensical it is.
Your entire theory is banking on the idea that Hillary Clinton would view a divided government (Dem Senate/GOP House) as an acceptable risk.
However, you have not explained why you think she would view this as an acceptable risk considering the failed Presidency of Barack Obama under the same divided government. Hillary Clinton is an opportunist. Her bets are always hedged. She does nothing without a calculating the risk vs. benefit.
If you are so strong in your belief of the above, you should have no problem spelling this out for us, instead of deflecting, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
