Politico: Clinton May Delay Campaign Launch Until Summer

[Mister Mets]

“Hillary Clinton, expecting no major challenge for the Democratic nomination, is strongly considering delaying the formal launch of her presidential campaign until July, three months later than originally planned,” Politico reports.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/exclusive-hillary-clinton-may-delay-campaign-114714.html#ixzz3QD7w1xoe

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thoughts?

[King]

As late as possible so the GOP candidates have no actual candidate to talk about running against

[Mr. Morden]

A presidential exploratory committee is, for all intents and purposes, a presidential campaign (since all the $ raised in the exploratory phase can just be rolled over into the "real campaign"), so I don't think the date she announces her actual "campaign" makes any difference whatsoever if she already has an exploratory committee.

Heck, in the past two or three election cycles, we had numerous candidates participating in debates when they were still in the "exploratory committee" phase.  The official launches of their campaigns were often just afterthoughts that no one paid any attention to.

[PresidentTRUMP]

Wow, that would be reallly late.

[Mr. Morden]

In 2003, the Democrats held their first debate in early May.  Several candidates, including Kerry, Edwards, and Dean, participated in the debate despite not having officially announced their candidacies.  But they had exploratory committees, and were acting like candidates: raising money, participating in debates, doing campaign swings in early primary states.  Kerry didn't formally announce his candidacy until September, and the media largely ignored it as a non-event at the time, because he'd already been behaving as a candidate for many months.  The announcement of candidacy was just a formality.

In contrast, when Fred Thompson ran in 2007/2008, he skipped any debates during his exploratory phase, and pretty much just stayed at home, calling donors.  (But he was lazy.)  Jim Webb seems to be doing pretty much the same right now.  (He doesn't seem to be that excited about running either.)

How a candidate treats the exploratory phase is up to the candidate.  If Clinton launches an exploratory committee in April, then everyone will understand that that's effectively the launch of her campaign.  But she might just decide to spend those first few months raising money, and doing little else.  Being in the exploratory phase does give you the benefit of plausible deniability if you don't want to start with the national interviews or frequent trips to Iowa just yet.

[Eraserhead]

Here's hoping she delays the announcement until 2017...

[King]

Rick Perry didn't jump into the 2012 race until August 2011. He did not do an exploratory committee. She can do it that late.

IMO, Hillary should just focus time on working with a personal trainer and spending the summer tanning so she looks her best in the pantsuits.

[IceSpear]

As late as possible so the GOP candidates have no actual candidate to talk about running against

"We need to move on from the Obama/Webb foreign policy"

[IceSpear]

Anyway, Mr. Morden is correct. If she launches an exploratory committee in April, that will be the news, and her actual campaign announcement would be an afterthought, so I'm not sure I get the point in this. She's already seen as a politician at this point anyway, and has been for quite some time.

[Likely Voter]

Once you are an official candidate you are expected to actually go out and campaign and also be available to the press, and issue statements on the issues of the day, etc. While you can do those things and even participate in debates while you are in the 'exploring' phase, it isn't expected. ANd as their aren't any other major candidates and there wont be any debates, I think she can get away with going 'exploratory' for Q2 2015 and then announce in the summer and start to actually campaign.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's no way to run for president without "looking political." It's the most consummately political thing a person can do. So I don't see how they expect to run a presidential campaign by avoiding this.

The Clinton campaign can easily address Hillary's vulnerabilities - simply by building a campaign around substance. When Clinton is associated with a particular message then people will take sides for or against that message, and she just won't just be "a Clinton" who's just running for president because "it's her turn" or "she wants power for the sake of power" et cetera. Instead, she can actually put something up at stake that's clear to the public.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Coward

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Meh, she doesn't have a primary to run in. At most, she'll have to dispatch Sanders and O'Malley, which should be no problem. She can take her time.

[Frodo]

Bad idea -complacency is a potentially crippling disease once it takes hold of a campaign.  

[IceSpear]

Meh, she doesn't have a primary to run in. At most, she'll have to dispatch Sanders and O'Malley, which should be no problem. She can take her time.

Are you trying to upset Jim Webb?

[Mr. Morden]

The media is like:

What if she forgets to file for the primaries?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCu38dM6oBA&t=3m40s

[Mr. Morden]

Bernstein explains:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-29/hillary-clinton-s-brazen-non-candidacy

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Beet]

Bernstein explains:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-29/hillary-clinton-s-brazen-non-candidacy

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But isn't part of treating someone like an active candidate asking questions like "Why do you want to run for president? What would you do as president?" etc. Those seem like pretty basic, fundamental parts of a campaign to me.

Particularly, as someone who likes and would almost certainly support Hillary, I'm inclined to listen to what she says, and if she hasn't said she's definitely running, I'm not going to be as active in that support. When a candidate announces they get a boost from supporters who know the candidate has asked for their vote and their support and is explicitly in the game with them.

I also don't see the logic of using a non-announcement to duck important questions, since they're only going to come anyway if she does announce. And if she dislike campaigning so much that she's making major campaign decisions on the basis of reducing her campaigning time, she's probably genuinely hesitant about running anyway, or should be. Running for president is non-stop campaigning and if the candidate doesn't like it, it shows.

Anyway, if Bernstein is saying he wants to attack and criticize Hillary regardless of whether she's announced or not, it's his right to do so. But I think the picture he paints is incomplete and an announcement is a bigger deal than he's making it out to be.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Bad idea -complacency is a potentially crippling disease once it takes hold of a campaign.  

[anvi]

Yeah, no need to announce early for her.  She can afford to lay low, raise money and see what kind of field forms.  She doesn't need to run around telling precinct captains and party operatives who she is.

[IceSpear]

I mean, at the end of the day, nobody a year and a half from now is going to remember or care whether Hillary launched her campaign in April or July. I don't see it so much as a bad or good decision, but rather as a pointless one.

[Mister Mets]

The flap over vaccines shows an advantage for Hillary in waiting.

If she's not officially campaigning, she can keep a lighter schedule, and avoid media questions that could lead to bad news cycles. She can address controversies on her own terms when there's a better understanding of the right answer.

It's much better to tweet something than to be asked if her position on vaccines is the same as it was during the 2008 campaign.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The flap over vaccines shows an advantage for Hillary in waiting.

The Democratic strategy of not being completely batsh**t crazy didn't work out last year, though.

[King]

The flap over vaccines shows an advantage for Hillary in waiting.

The Democratic strategy of not being completely batsh**t crazy didn't work out last year, though.

That wasn't the Democratic strategy last year. The Democratic strategy was "we hate the President for some reason."

[Ljube]

Here's hoping she delays the announcement until 2017...