Dems: Would you be mad at Hillary if she didn't run?

[Beet]

I understand why some would, but I wouldn't, for two main reasons. One, it's not her responsibility that the media and others have been blowing her up into this inevitable colossus without her really doing anything except writing a book and campaigning for other candidates. It's true she hadn't issued a Sherman statement, but it should be her perogative to seriously consider a campaign (which includes doing things like visting Iowa or talking to close advisors) without ultimately committing to it. Two, it's still freaking early! The GOP primary was still highly volatile in late 2011, with unknowns like Herman Cain briefly surging into the front of the pack. A week is a long time in politics, let alone a year. There's plenty of time for a field to emerge, and there still would be in March or April.

But the biggest reason is that the absolutely worst thing that could happen is Hillary doesn't feel up to another six years/ a decade of campaigning / being on politics (mentally or physically), and her heart isn't into it, but she runs solely out of fear of disappointing the frankenstein of expectations that have built up around her.

[henster]

She would never lead so many people on and intentionally damage the party by abruptly not running when every sign shows she will.

[whanztastic]

Not if she endorsed Gillibrand at the same time.

[IceSpear]

Probably the wrong place to ask this, considering most Atlas Dems would likely be thrilled if she didn't run.

But from the perspective of a Hillary supporter, I would be pretty annoyed with her. However, you do bring up some good points. The thing is, I don't really see why 2013 and most of 2014 wouldn't be enough time for her to seriously consider if she wants to run a campaign, go through the meat grinder, etc. Hell, back in 2013 the vast majority of people thought Hillary was more likely not to run than to run. But this entire year we've just had a steady "drip drip" stream of news and events pointing to the fact that she's going to run, with virtually nothing pointing in the opposite direction (besides the fact that she'll give a paid speech in February, or whatever). I feel like for the vast majority of people, regardless of what they say in public, their decision on whether or not to run has already been made (though there are some exceptions...Jeb this year seems to be one). So had Hillary truly decided not to run months ago, it doesn't make sense to drag out the announcement this long. It's not like she's an attention whore who needs to make some money selling books like Cain, Gingrich, Huckabee, etc.

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

Probably the wrong place to ask this, considering most Atlas Dems would likely be thrilled if she didn't run.

But from the perspective of a Hillary supporter, I would be pretty annoyed with her. However, you do bring up some good points. The thing is, I don't really see why 2013 and most of 2014 wouldn't be enough time for her to seriously consider if she wants to run a campaign, go through the meat grinder, etc. Hell, back in 2013 the vast majority of people thought Hillary was more likely not to run than to run. But this entire year we've just had a steady "drip drip" stream of news and events pointing to the fact that she's going to run, with virtually nothing pointing in the opposite direction (besides the fact that she'll give a paid speech in February, or whatever). I feel like for the vast majority of people, regardless of what they say in public, their decision on whether or not to run has already been made (though there are some exceptions...Jeb this year seems to be one). So had Hillary truly decided not to run months ago, it doesn't make sense to drag out the announcement this long. It's not like she's an attention whore who needs to make some money selling books like Cain, Gingrich, Huckabee, etc.

Her early announcement of her 2008 run (Jan. 2007) is generally considered to be a mistake on her part, she doesn't want to do the same thing again.

[Beet]

Probably the wrong place to ask this, considering most Atlas Dems would likely be thrilled if she didn't run.

But from the perspective of a Hillary supporter, I would be pretty annoyed with her. However, you do bring up some good points. The thing is, I don't really see why 2013 and most of 2014 wouldn't be enough time for her to seriously consider if she wants to run a campaign, go through the meat grinder, etc. Hell, back in 2013 the vast majority of people thought Hillary was more likely not to run than to run. But this entire year we've just had a steady "drip drip" stream of news and events pointing to the fact that she's going to run, with virtually nothing pointing in the opposite direction (besides the fact that she'll give a paid speech in February, or whatever). I feel like for the vast majority of people, regardless of what they say in public, their decision on whether or not to run has already been made (though there are some exceptions...Jeb this year seems to be one). So had Hillary truly decided not to run months ago, it doesn't make sense to drag out the announcement this long. It's not like she's an attention whore who needs to make some money selling books like Cain, Gingrich, Huckabee, etc.

Very few people alive today (including the "vast majority of people" you refer to) have any idea of the rigors and hard choices involved in being president. George W. Bush, his father, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, and the Clintons might be the only people on earth who do. This is deciding the next decade for Hillary and possibly for the nation. You can't just quit in the middle of the presidency (unless you're a Palin, I guess).

If any decision is consequential enough to warrant the fullest consideration possible, this is it. No matter what the speculations, not one of us is or will ever be in a better position than judge whether Hillary is matched to this role than Hillary herself. Only she knows herself. It's important for the rest of us that she makes the right decision, not the decision we think we want. I think she deserves pressure free space for a few more months to carry out that responsibility.

[Cory]

She would never lead so many people on and intentionally damage the party by abruptly not running when every sign shows she will.

[Mr. Morden]

She would never lead so many people on and intentionally damage the party by abruptly not running when every sign shows she will.

To be perfectly honest, it's not clear to me that there would be any damage to the party if she "abruptly" announced that she's not running.  There would be a wide open Democratic field, and a mad scramble among numerous candidates to get in the race, but I don't think the resulting contest would necessarily damage the party, nor (as I said in this thread) do I think that whoever would emerge from such a primary would necessarily be a weaker general election candidate than Clinton.  She looks like the strongest now because her name recognition is near 100% while most of the others are below 50%, but it seems plausible to me that some other hypothetical Democratic nominee would turn out to be just as strong.

Sure, it would mean that the Republican candidates would have started running earlier than the Democratic candidates, but who cares?  We're millions of news cycles away from November 2016, so that doesn't really matter.

[NewYorkExpress]

No, because the difference in her running or not, is really a difference between a landslide defeat for Democrats, and a 2000 type election defeat.

[publicunofficial]

Depends on when she announces it. If she did it tomorrow, no. If she did it this summer, yes.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

No, I'd be ecstatic.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course not. The idea that she's some magical savoir for the problems in the party caused by her husband is ridiculous.

[Miles]

I'd be more disappointed than mad.

[BaconBacon96]

I'd be annoyed that she cleared the field before deciding not to run. It would throw a huge spanner in the works for the Democratic primary.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Yes, because the moment she does Cuomo is going to jump in and he'll put in a hell of a fight to get it.

[Mr. Morden]

I'd be annoyed that she cleared the field before deciding not to run. It would throw a huge spanner in the works for the Democratic primary.

The field would un-clear pretty quickly.  Sure, each candidate would be in a mad scramble to get ready, but they'd all be in an equal mad scramble, so I don't see it as giving any particular candidate any advantage or disadvantage.  I don't see how the party as a whole would suffer.

[The Mikado]

As the poster above me said, it depends on when she said she wasn't running. If it were in March? That's fine. If she did the "will she or won't she" dance until August? That would do lasting damage on the field as very few viable candidates would jump in, very few top-flight consultants would join their campaigns, very few volunteers would canvas for them, and very few big donors would open their wallets. Clinton has to make up her mind in the first quarter of 2015.

[Bojack Horseman]

Yes, because she's the only Democratic candidate that's going to win in 2016.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Yes, because she'd be giving the presidency to a Republican, or worse, Cuomo.

[Cory]

Yes, because the moment she does Cuomo is going to jump in and he'll put in a hell of a fight to get it.

This also. Hillary is the only one who can save the Party from Cuomo.

[eric82oslo]

Not if she endorsed Gillibrand at the same time.

Besides Hillary, I think that Gillibrand would be the only other Democrat to be the odds on favourite going into the final stage. Even Elizabeth Warren, as strong as she is (on paper), would probably only be a 40-47% favourite to win. Joe Biden would probably have about a 1% chance to win, and then I'm actually being generous.

However, while Kirsten will be a 55-60% favourite to win, Hillary will be a 99% favourite to win. If anything, I'm underestimating her actual odds.

[Cory]

Besides Hillary, I think that Gillibrand would be the only other Democrat to be the odds on favourite going into the final stage. Even Elizabeth Warren, as strong as she is (on paper), would probably only be a 40-47% favourite to win. Joe Biden would probably have about a 1% chance to win, and then I'm actually being generous.

However, while Kirsten will be a 55-60% favourite to win, Hillary will be a 99% favourite to win. If anything, I'm underestimating her actual odds.

Not after the New York political establishment politely but firmly tells her to step aside in favor of Cuomo.

I know this forums has a crush on Gillibrand but it just isn't going to happen because of the Cuomo dynamic.

[GaussLaw]

Not if she endorsed Gillibrand at the same time.

Besides Hillary, I think that Gillibrand would be the only other  to be  on favourite going into the final stage. Even , as strong as she is (on paper), would probably only be a 40-47% favourite .  would probably have about a 1% chance to win, and then I'm actually being generous.

However, while Kirsten will be a 55-60% favourite to win, Hillary will be a 99% favourite to win. If anything, I'm underestimating her actual odds.

Hillary is not a 99% favorite to win the general election if that's what you mean.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yes, because the moment she does Cuomo is going to jump in and he'll put in a hell of a fight to get it.

This also. Hillary is the only one who can save the Party from Cuomo.

After his actions during the last midterms, it's pretty obvious that Cuomo has few, if any, allies among national Democrats (aka The Establishment). That means that the moment he announced his intention to run they would rush to support his opponent(s).
His name has become anathema among liberals and they run the show now. 

[The Mikado]

It's worth remembering the huge difference here between Clinton bowing out in February or March and her doing so in August or September. The latter would be truly devastating. The lost field recruiting, fundraising, organizational building, canvassing/volunteering, advertising, and, frankly, campaigning would cripple the remaining candidates, as all the big-name donors sit tight on their wallets until Clinton makes noises.

I fully expect Clinton to make her official announcement, whether in or out, by Valentine's Day. If she doesn't, either way, it's irresponsible to the party.