Could Hillary be chilled from running?

[Person Man]

Say that the republicans do very well this year, the end up GAINING in the house and win SD,MT,WN,AR,LA,NC,AK,IA,CO and maybe even NH or OR or at least 7 of these races where they knock out more incumbents than they have combined in decades. 

Will this make Hillary not want to run because she could be tied to a very weakened Dem establishment, make it most likely that she will be a placeholder from day 1 if she wins, and that it would make the party look very bad to run her and lose by enough to lose face?

The Democratic strategy going forward might be to offer a sacrificial lamb in 2016, try to hold enough seats to filibuster the repeal of ACA and other Republican "programs" while trying to rebuild the party from the grassroots on up.

I can see that the Republicans could of gotten someone better than McCain in 2008 if they at least held the Senate in 2006.

[Free Bird]

Interesting theory. If they take the senate period that would send a signal. Campaigning is a stressful thing, and someone who is getting up there age wise might not want to go through it again if she would have to WORK for it and not cruise to victory like every Democrat here seems to think.

[King]

This midterm was never going to be good for the Democrats and never going to matter.  A great GOP showing will only embolden them to nominate a terrible candidate.

2016 is going to be a boring by the numbers predictable election. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's sad to say because we all want something to care about, but 2016 is going to put us to sleep.

[IceSpear]

No. 2010 and 1994 didn't cause Obama/Clinton to not run for re-election. 2006 didn't scare off anyone besides George Allen, and that was only because he lost re-election. The political environment can change drastically in two years, as we saw from 2008 -> 2010. And if Republicans take the Senate and do all the crazy stuff Mitch McConnell was talking about in his interview, that will just give Hillary even more incentive to run.

[Free Bird]

The difference was that those were first term midterms and the incumbent was never unpopular to begin with. Democrats rolled off their success in 2006 in the open 2008, which doesn't make it inconceivable that Republicans could do the same.

[IceSpear]

The difference was that those were first term midterms and the incumbent was never unpopular to begin with. Democrats rolled off their success in 2006 in the open 2008, which doesn't make it inconceivable that Republicans could do the same.

Still, politicians more than anybody know how quickly things can change. Hillary personally probably knows that in 1990/1991 it was considered a suicide mission to go up against the extremely popular Bush 41. How did that turn out again? Besides, even if Republicans take the Senate, Democrats could easily gain it back again if 2016 is a good (or even modest) year for them.

[Free Bird]

The difference was that those were first term midterms and the incumbent was never unpopular to begin with. Democrats rolled off their success in 2006 in the open 2008, which doesn't make it inconceivable that Republicans could do the same.

Still, politicians more than anybody know how quickly things can change. Hillary personally probably knows that in 1990/1991 it was considered a suicide mission to go up against the extremely popular Bush 41. How did that turn out again? Besides, even if Republicans take the Senate, Democrats could easily gain it back again if 2016 is a good (or even modest) year for them.

y

The 2016 senate will be interesting. If Republicans get an expendable majority, they could still lose Johnson and Kirk (for the record I would welcome Feingold back if they had a seat to spare), but if the NV Lt. Gov race turns out right, Sandoval can cover the loss by taking out Reid and Bennet in CO would be vulnerable, too.

[King]

The Democrats steamrolled the Republicans in 1986. It didn't prevent H.W. Bush from running and it didn't prevent Bob Dole, who lost Majority Leader in 86, from running in the primaries either.

[Free Bird]

The Democrats steamrolled the Republicans in 1986. It didn't prevent H.W. Bush from running and it didn't prevent Bob Dole, who lost Majority Leader in 86, from running in the primaries either.

Why are you a Republican, King?

[King]

The New Mexico Democratic Party is awful and I align with the Republicans in local elections. I was a big supporter of Dubya as well.

Politically, I support the conservative idea of eliminating bureaucracy but am against the Teabagger idea that there should not be wealth redistribution.

I consider myself aligned with Milton Friedman, who proposed replacing welfare programs with negative income tax, giving the poor money through the IRS without the need for intensive paperwork by other agencies. It's small government that doesn't screw the little guy.

Lawyers and accountants that try to prevent fraud in government programs at a higher cost than what fraudsters take are what make government programs dysfunctional in my opinion. It's not something today's Republicans care about, but it's not Democratic either.

In the end, while I am a NM Republican, I will never support a Republican candidate for President as it stands because when push comes to shove, I'll take an inefficient federal government that provides for the poor and lower middle class than one that efficiently ignores them.

[Person Man]

The New Mexico Democratic Party is awful and I align with the Republicans in local elections. I was a big supporter of Dubya as well.

Politically, I support the conservative idea of eliminating bureaucracy but am against the Teabagger idea that there should not be wealth redistribution.

I consider myself aligned with Milton Friedman, who proposed replacing welfare programs with negative income tax, giving the poor money through the IRS without the need for intensive paperwork by other agencies. It's small government that doesn't screw the little guy.

Lawyers and accountants that try to prevent fraud in government programs at a higher cost than what fraudsters take are what make government programs dysfunctional in my opinion. It's not something today's Republicans care about, but it's not Democratic either.

In the end, while I am a NM Republican, I will never support a Republican candidate for President as it stands because when push comes to shove, I'll take an inefficient federal government that provides for the poor and lower middle class than one that efficiently ignores them.

You sound a lot like a lot of Colorado or Nevada Republicans or the opposite of many Oklahoma Democrats who like social programs but think that the current Dem policies are for "big government that screws the little guy". I knew a Conservative Republican who grew up in the middle east. She said that she didn't like Obamacare because of the entire death panel thing and that we should just have single payer instead.

Its true. In 1994, Republicans did very well but still lost the momentum by shutting down the Government over the little changes that Clinton made. However, they didn't lose any momentum they built a strong dynasty that almost ran uninterrupted for 12 years.

I also think that if we lose, its how we lose that matters. If our brand is crippled in states we need to do better in the long term, its more of a harbinger of things to come than if we lose by losing all the dems in the red states. That's why I was optimistic after 2010, because we were able to contain our loses in some blue states and most of the losses were states that had a long record of Rockerfeller Republicanism (voting blue on top and red on the bottom).

[Bull Moose Base]

2016 is going to be a boring by the numbers predictable election. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's sad to say because we all want something to care about, but 2016 is going to put us to sleep.

The Republican primary will be a fun spectacle even if it has nothing to do with who the next president is.

[Simfan34]

The New Mexico Democratic Party is awful and I align with the Republicans in local elections. I was a big supporter of Dubya as well.

Politically, I support the conservative idea of eliminating bureaucracy but am against the Teabagger idea that there should not be wealth redistribution.

I consider myself aligned with Milton Friedman, who proposed replacing welfare programs with negative income tax, giving the poor money through the IRS without the need for intensive paperwork by other agencies. It's small government that doesn't screw the little guy.

Lawyers and accountants that try to prevent fraud in government programs at a higher cost than what fraudsters take are what make government programs dysfunctional in my opinion. It's not something today's Republicans care about, but it's not Democratic either.

In the end, while I am a NM Republican, I will never support a Republican candidate for President as it stands because when push comes to shove, I'll take an inefficient federal government that provides for the poor and lower middle class than one that efficiently ignores them.

I've been wondering.

[dmmidmi]

The New Mexico Democratic Party is awful and I align with the Republicans in local elections. I was a big supporter of Dubya as well.

Politically, I support the conservative idea of eliminating bureaucracy but am against the Teabagger idea that there should not be wealth redistribution.

I consider myself aligned with Milton Friedman, who proposed replacing welfare programs with negative income tax, giving the poor money through the IRS without the need for intensive paperwork by other agencies. It's small government that doesn't screw the little guy.

Lawyers and accountants that try to prevent fraud in government programs at a higher cost than what fraudsters take are what make government programs dysfunctional in my opinion. It's not something today's Republicans care about, but it's not Democratic either.

In the end, while I am a NM Republican, I will never support a Republican candidate for President as it stands because when push comes to shove, I'll take an inefficient federal government that provides for the poor and lower middle class than one that efficiently ignores them.

I'm not a huge fan of Milton Friedman, but I love this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8

[Deus Naturae]

The Democrats steamrolled the Republicans in 1986. It didn't prevent H.W. Bush from running and it didn't prevent Bob Dole, who lost Majority Leader in 86, from running in the primaries either.

Why are you a Republican, King?

Are you really that much of a hack that you align electoral speculation with partisan affiliation? You think that Republicans have a duty to claim that Hillary won't run? The point of this thread is to discuss what you think will happen, not what you think should happen.

[Blue3]

A more Republican Congress means the Democrats can better equate Republicans=Congress (doing nothing), Democrats=President (getting things done). It could then strengthen Hillary for 2016.

(Most things can be spun for either party)

Also, she wants to be President, and this is likely her last chance and she knows it. You never know how things will turn out unless you actually take that chance.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Wow, I've never seen King explain that before. I always thought the blue avatar was more of a joke, like Joe Republic's old R-NV avatar.

[Free Bird]

Wow, I've never seen King explain that before. I always thought the blue avatar was more of a joke, like Joe Republic's old R-NV avatar.

And I get called a hack for bringing up something everyone has been wanting to ask

[henster]

The Dems could easily flip the Senate back into Democratic hands just looking at the 2016 map.

[Deus Naturae]

Wow, I've never seen King explain that before. I always thought the blue avatar was more of a joke, like Joe Republic's old R-NV avatar.

And I get called a hack for bringing up something everyone has been wanting to ask

No, I'm just saying it's hackish to question someone on being a Republican because they think Hillary is going to run. Even if King was an ultra-conservative Tea Partier, it still makes no sense to question him being a Republican because he stated a fact about the 1986 midterms...

[Likely Voter]

The only thing that would chill Hillary is if her polling showed she would have a tough primary fight and/or she was an underdog for the general. I don't think she really wants such an uphill battle.

[© tweed]

Hillary won't decline to run out of fear of losing.  if she declines to run it will be because of "health", ie after devoting much of her life to career pursuits pretty consistently since she was a teenager, she doesn't want to spend her 70s living the high-stress, low-sleep lifestyle, and would rather sit on beaches and pay the bills with those 6-figure speaking engagements.

[Free Bird]

Hillary won't decline to run out of fear of losing.  if she declines to run it will be because of "health", ie after devoting much of her life to career pursuits pretty consistently since she was a teenager, she doesn't want to spend her 70s living the high-stress, low-sleep lifestyle, and would rather sit on beaches and pay the bills with those 6-figure speaking engagements.

[Dixie Reborn]

I hope not. I want Sanders and possibly Kucinich to call her out on her bs.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I hope not. I want Sanders and possibly Kucinich to call her out on her bs.

Kucinich? His prior runs show that he would be no more than a nationwide amusement if he were to run against Hillary.

Kucinich 2004: 3.81% of the primaries' popular vote (nationwide)
Kucinich 2008: 0.27% of the primaries' popular vote (nationwide)