Should we really be ruling out a Hillary 2020 run?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Just as the title says, should we really be writing off the chances of Hillary making a 3rd presidential run? Think about it. It's not completely impossible, especially if concrete evidence comes out proving Trump did use Russia to steal the election from her. Something that looks more and more likely each day.

[Confused Democrat]

STOP

[Beet]

Yes. I was one of her strongest supporters, and I would not support her. She would have no chance, with many new candidates, and there is no way the party would unite behind her, and with her being such a bad candidate.

[Technocracy Timmy]

It's still her turn.

[cvparty]

absolutely

[Xing]

Maybe we shouldn't rule out a run, but she's not winning the Democratic primary.

[Hammy]

Maybe we shouldn't rule out a run, but she's not winning the Democratic primary.

Never underestimate the Dems ability to flush their electoral chances down the toilet. If she runs, it means the party has learned nothing, and likely everybody will clear the way for her nomination again.

[Del Tachi]

It's still her turn.

[The Other Castro]

Yes.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Third time was the charm for Reagan.

Nixon came back and won after losing a national election.

I believe in Hillary. Sexist teenagers on forum boards cannot stop her.

[MT Treasurer]

No.

[Tancred]

Hillary Clinton might run again but I don't think she will win and I don't think other Democrats will stand aside for her. Clinton would be fighting in a crowded field and I could see a "never Hillary" movement developing that would eventually back whoever is left standing against her. Clinton does have a lot of loyal followers so I wouldn't discount her ability to put up a good fight in the primary. It would be another ugly primary though.

So in short, no I would not rule out a Hillary 2020 run even though I don't think she will win the nomination.

[Mr. Smith]

Unfortunately, no.

[RINO Tom]

LOL, yes.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Yes. She lost to Donald Trump. I supported her but I don't know why some are so insistent on making this happen. She lost just like Gore and Kerry. Move on.

[Hammy]

Third time was the charm for Reagan.

Nixon came back and won after losing a national election.

I believe in Hillary. Sexist teenagers on forum boards cannot stop her.

Reagan never lost the General, and Nixon didn't lose against one of the most hated candidates in history. And calling people sexist for not supporting a do-over from an incompetent, widely unpopular candidate who managed to lose three longtime Dem states to Trump of all people, is nothing short of hackery and is not the best way to convince people to support a third run.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Third time was the charm for Reagan.

Nixon came back and won after losing a national election.

I believe in Hillary. Sexist teenagers on forum boards cannot stop her.

Reagan never lost the General, and Nixon didn't lose against one of the most hated candidates in history. And calling people sexist for not supporting a do-over from an incompetent, widely unpopular candidate who managed to lose three longtime Dem states to Trump of all people, is nothing short of hackery and is not the best way to convince people to support a third run.

Comey isn't a factor anymore so her poll numbers in regards to favorability will be very high this time. By 2020 millennials will make up just under 40% of the electorate and they will vote for her in vengeance over what Donald Trump having realized the error of their ways in 2016.

Madame. President. 2020.

[Hammy]

Third time was the charm for Reagan.

Nixon came back and won after losing a national election.

I believe in Hillary. Sexist teenagers on forum boards cannot stop her.

Reagan never lost the General, and Nixon didn't lose against one of the most hated candidates in history. And calling people sexist for not supporting a do-over from an incompetent, widely unpopular candidate who managed to lose three longtime Dem states to Trump of all people, is nothing short of hackery and is not the best way to convince people to support a third run.

Comey isn't a factor anymore so her poll numbers in regards to favorability will be very high this time. By 2020 millennials will make up just under 40% of the electorate and they will vote for her in vengeance over what Donald Trump having realized the error of their ways in 2016.

Madame. President. 2020.

I do hope this is sarcasm. I really do.

[Beet]

I hate to break it to you Timmy, but the online sexists won, and decency lost, as the former had the patriarchy behind them.

[The Mikado]

Third time was the charm for Reagan.

Nixon came back and won after losing a national election.

I believe in Hillary. Sexist teenagers on forum boards cannot stop her.

Reagan never lost the General, and Nixon didn't lose against one of the most hated candidates in history. And calling people sexist for not supporting a do-over from an incompetent, widely unpopular candidate who managed to lose three longtime Dem states to Trump of all people, is nothing short of hackery and is not the best way to convince people to support a third run.

Comey isn't a factor anymore so her poll numbers in regards to favorability will be very high this time. By 2020 millennials will make up just under 40% of the electorate

Clearly the perfect time to run a woman born in 1947.

The time has come for the postwar generation to depart from the stage.

[Hammy]

I hate to break it to you Timmy, but the online sexists won, and decency lost, as the former had the patriarchy behind them.

Sexism isn't to blame for Clinton's incompetence--he people that refused to vote for her because she was a woman, would likely not have voted for any Democrat in the first place. And going with this reason makes the same mistakes of nominating somebody who is reviled and unable to run a competent campaign even more likely to be repeated.

[RINO Tom]

I hate to break it to you Timmy, but the online sexists won, and decency lost, as the former had the patriarchy behind them.

Sexism isn't to blame for Clinton's incompetence--he people that refused to vote for her because she was a woman, would likely not have voted for any Democrat in the first place. And going with this reason makes the same mistakes of nominating somebody who is reviled and unable to run a competent campaign even more likely to be repeated.

Seriously, is there ANYTHING worse than the smug, self-assuring look of liberal political commentators who repeat this COMPLETELY baseless, self-congratulating trope?  Someone who refuses to vote for any woman couldn't vote for a male Democrat regularly?  Show me the proof of that bullshlt, LOL.  Until then, I'll trust my anecdotal experience, which says that could not be further from the truth.

[MM876]

Third time was the charm for Reagan.

Nixon came back and won after losing a national election.

I believe in Hillary. Sexist teenagers on forum boards cannot stop her.

Reagan ran for the nomination twice, and when he finally got it he won in a landslide.

Nixon ran eight years later against an entirely different opponent after losing the election to a charismatic rising star by the slimmest of margins.

Hillary lost to the worst candidate in American history (arguably making her, by default, the worst candidate in American history) when she was supposed to beat him by around 4-5 points and win the election by a comfortable margin.

She is not Reagan. She is not Nixon. At best she is Adlai Stevenson II, and if you're saying "Who?" right now, my point is already proven.

Hillary may run, she will not win the primary, she will not win the general election, and she will manage to embarrass the Clinton name one last time before she and Bill pass.

Sexist teenagers on forum boards won't stop her, the American people will stop her if the Democrats don't. I see no way how being four years older and four more years out of touch will help her. Polls may show her ahead now, as they did before 2016, but that gap will narrow when people remember what a horrible candidate she is and she will lose again.

[Hammy]

I hate to break it to you Timmy, but the online sexists won, and decency lost, as the former had the patriarchy behind them.

Sexism isn't to blame for Clinton's incompetence--he people that refused to vote for her because she was a woman, would likely not have voted for any Democrat in the first place. And going with this reason makes the same mistakes of nominating somebody who is reviled and unable to run a competent campaign even more likely to be repeated.

Seriously, is there ANYTHING worse than the smug, self-assuring look of liberal political commentators who repeat this COMPLETELY baseless, self-congratulating trope?  Someone who refuses to vote for any woman couldn't vote for a male Democrat regularly?  Show me the proof of that bullshlt, LOL.  Until then, I'll trust my anecdotal experience, which says that could not be further from the truth.

Based on personal experience, this has absolutely been the case. Everyone I've ever come across that refused to vote for a women (on those grounds) are all hardline conservatives--not saying all conservatives have this mindset mind you. And bear in mind there were many who voted for her as well solely on those grounds. And are you, a Republican, actually going to take the side of Dems playing the sexism card because their side didn't win?

[heatcharger]

I hate to break it to you Timmy, but the online sexists won, and decency lost, as the former had the patriarchy behind them.

Sexism isn't to blame for Clinton's incompetence--he people that refused to vote for her because she was a woman, would likely not have voted for any Democrat in the first place. And going with this reason makes the same mistakes of nominating somebody who is reviled and unable to run a competent campaign even more likely to be repeated.

Seriously, is there ANYTHING worse than the smug, self-assuring look of liberal political commentators who repeat this COMPLETELY baseless, self-congratulating trope?  Someone who refuses to vote for any woman couldn't vote for a male Democrat regularly?  Show me the proof of that bullshlt, LOL.  Until then, I'll trust my anecdotal experience, which says that could not be further from the truth.

Based on personal experience, this has absolutely been the case. Everyone I've ever come across that refused to vote for a women (on those grounds) are all hardline conservatives--not saying all conservatives have this mindset mind you. And bear in mind there were many who voted for her as well solely on those grounds. And are you, a Republican, actually going to take the side of Dems playing the sexism card because their side didn't win?

Tom voted for Clinton, so his preferred candidate didn't win. I agree with his claim, although conversely, people who cared enough about electing a woman president to the point that they voted for Clinton are unlikely to have voted for a Republican otherwise.

Anyways, to the original question posed, Yes. Many of you may think she's overly ambitious, but she's not stupid. She knows she won't win. The people who want her to run again badly are ones who want Trump to win again.