Today in “Please, No” (HRC 2020 Edition)
Steven L. Taylor
·
Sunday, May 7, 2017
·
17 comments
The headline of Michael Goodwin’s NY Post column is: Hillary’s election loss excuse means one thing — She’s running in 2020.
Since I have seen this a couple of places, let me say: no thanks. Time to move on. Perhaps in 2020 we could be spared form political dynasties altogether?
(Truth be told, I cannot imagine her making another run, She would be 74 on election day in 2020).
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter
Looks when a news organization says she’s running maybe I might think there is something there. But its the NY Post, a few steps below the national Enquirer.
I’ve said several times since the election that I don’t have a lot of optimism for Democrats in 2020, since there’s a reasonably good chance we’d see a repeat of the same Bernie vs. Hillary fight in the primary, just with different candidates. The way things are going, it almost wouldn’t be shocking to see the literal Bernie vs. Hillary repeat … and for good measure with Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden also jumping in 4 years too late. š
I also think that there’s much more than a non zero chance that whoever the Democrats nominate in 2020 will be running against a Republican not named Donald Trump.
@Todd:
I’m with you on this.
The slim hope I have is that so much can happen between now and January 2020. While the landscape seems bleak and barren for Democrats now (fossils like Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Clinton), who predicted, who knew in 2005 that Barack Obama would be the Party standard bearer in 2008?
Also, another slim hope, is that the Russia/Trump personal and political connection becomes, through leaks and investigation, a real scandal.
Many people are saying that it’s the finest plutocracy. We have the best people looking into it, and it’ll be great! Take my word for it… All the people are saying she should run, and it will be a landslide !!!
I hear no one else will even run !
Have we ever, in the modern era, had someone who won the nomination but lost the Presidency get nominated again? I can see it happening before primaries were a thing, but since then?
For better or worse, fair or unfair, someone who loses at that level is going to have loser stink.
It would take an amazing and brilliant politician to win the primaries with that baggage — arguably someone who would have won the presidency the first time by a landslide.
@al-Ameda:
As I said at the end of my comment, I think there are a variety of possible scenarios where Donald Trump is not the Republican nominee again in 2020. However, I’m not so sure that’s necessarily a good thing for Democrats.
It’s the “New York Post”
Period. End. Full Stop.
@Gustopher:
Depends how you define “modern.” Nixon is the most recent example. Before him, there was Adlai Stevenson, Thomas Dewey, and William Jennings Bryan. It hasn’t happened in the period since the 1972 reforms (which created the modern primary system).
Keep in mind, though, that in this entire period a general-election loser has never even run again. John Kerry and Al Gore flirted with running in 2008, as did Romney in 2016.
It seems that when candidates run in the primaries and fail to win the nomination, it doesn’t usually hurt them and may even give them a boost. In fact, in the modern era a lot of nominees (especially on the GOP side) were candidates who previously ran and lost a primary campaign.
In the general election, however, losing is much likelier to get the candidate branded as a “loser.” There’s a tendency for the nominee to get blamed for defeat. (This isn’t entirely fair, as election outcomes are heavily dependent on things like the economy that aren’t necessarily within the candidate’s control. But whatever the truth of the matter, the conventional narrative about elections nearly always ends up being a story of a stronger candidate triumphing over a weaker one.)
I suspect Al Gore could have been formidable if he’d chosen to run again in 2004 or 2008, but we’ll never know. (According to the book Game Change, in 2006 Obama actually went to Gore and asked him if he intended to run. Evidently Obama would not have entered the race if Gore’s answer had been yes.) Of course, that’s partly because Gore didn’t really “lose” the first time around.
Hillary is probably in a different category. While she did win the popular vote, unlike 2000 her EC defeat was decisive. And in any case, she will forever be remembered as the candidate who lost to Donald Trump. I don’t think there’s any way to get over that.
@Gustopher: Well, there’s that Nixon character who seems to have broken so many other conventions. Nominated in ’60 but loses in the General. His kind of Republicanism is completely rejected in the ’64 Convention. He becomes the familiar and hard-working champion of the R’s in every county in the USA and ends up representing them again but victoriously in ’68.
We didn’t know it then but It’s OK If You’re A Republican.
@Gustopher: Does the name “Nixon” ring a bell?
Nixon’s rise from the dead as well as Obama coming out of nowhere both prove that anything can happen in presidential politics…with that being said, who can win the Dem nomination in 2020? Kamala Harris? Andrew Cuomo? Some other governor? Trump’s approval ratings won’t get any better between now and 2020 and if he isn’t around then it would most likely be Pence as the GOP standard bearer…he doesn’t seem particularly formidable…
I see I was late on the Nixon comparison–oh well. In any event, I’m afraid that “Onward Together” may be telling us all that we need to know about Hillary’s plans. Sad. Bigly sad.
CNN did their look ahead and said the top tier were Liz Warren (72), Bernie (79) and Biden (78). The list was uninspiring to say the least.
@An Interested Party:
Actually, the last three Democratic presidents–Obama, Clinton, and Carter–all more or less “came out of nowhere” (in the sense that they were all virtual unknowns at the national level before running).
You can start by looking at a list of current and recent Democratic governors and senators. Many of them declined to run in 2016, probably at least in part in deference to Clinton, something I doubt will be a factor going forward.
If the economy improves and he doesn’t start WWIII, he’ll probably be a shoo-in for reelection. Granted, those are big “ifs,” but you have a lot more confidence than I do in the American public’s ability to recognize incompetence.
@Hal_10000:
It is early, to be sure. I can see Bernie making another quixotic run, but I really have to wonder about Biden.
If Michael Goodwin’s prediction turns out to be wrong, will people stop listening to him?
I really hope they can find someone inspiring. I really like Jason Kander from Missouri, I just wish he’d have another high-profile office under his belt. I wonder if there’s any consideration for McCaskill to not run and give Kander another shot at a US Senate seat. I think he’d be a formidable candidate, particularly with someone like Kirsten Gillibrand on the ticket.