What happens if Hillary Clinton doesn’t run for president? Chaos.

[DonViejo]

BY CHRIS CILLIZZA
March 14 at 1:34 pm

Conventional wisdom -- and even some unconventional wisdom -- dictates that Hillary Clinton is running for president in 2016.

A universe of super PACs and other organizations has been built -- and staffed by former Clinton operatives -- to prepare the way for Hillary 2016. (To understand how fully formed these efforts are, make sure to read Mark Halperin's terrific piece in Time this week.)

And yet, running through all of these preparations is a current of uncertainty about whether the former first lady, senator and top diplomat will, you know, actually run. The thinking is that Clinton would never let efforts this extensive go forward if she, in her heart of hearts, wasn't planning to run. But that, like most of what we think we know about Clinton and her plans, is based not on facts but on interpretation. Clinton has been remarkably reticent about the possibility of running, although -- it's worth noting -- she has never ruled out a bid.

One thing that everyone -- those who want Clinton to run and those who don't -- agrees on is that she has simply not made up her mind on the race yet and likely won't for some time. (Our guess for an announcement about her future? Around this time next year.) So, what happens if she decides not to run? In a word: Chaos. For three reasons:

1. There is a panoply of ambitious Democrats who watched Barack Obama leapfrog them in 2008 and won't want to miss their opportunity this time around.

more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/14/what-happens-if-hillary-clinton-doesnt-run-for-president-chaos/?wpisrc=nl_eve

[onehandle]

1. Hillary will run and win.

I see no other possibility to prevent a total GOPNRAteahadist takeover.

[customerserviceguy]

18. Exactly true

She is playing a game with the competition (as weak as it is) to reduce their chances of giving her even a semblance of a run for her money even further.

She wins the nomination early and the general election handily. The only thing left to be decided is which Republicon will be branded with the "loser" label for blowing it so hugely to her. My guess: Rand Paul, as the establishment Repukes need to figure out how to disgorge the tea party from their organization.

[Laelth]

45. I think Hillary will run.

With that, I agree, but the electoral math says the Democrat wins in 2016 even if we run Daffy Duck. Hillary is in no way required to prevent any kind of teahadist takeover.

-Laelth

[monmouth3]

2. Cillizza is such a putz. He's praying for chaos but won't get it. If she doesn't run for whatever

reason, she's not the only horse in the barn for god's sake. Sorry Chris, "chaos" is not in our DNA..

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. +1 eom.

[DonViejo]

5. At least not since '68 and '72 (hopefully) eom

[elfin]

4. That s why I hope for a substantive primary line up

We need to show the strength of our bench- Biden, O'Malley, Sanders Warren etal.

Hillary needs to show her Progressive creds ( latent tho they may be.)

She Needs to earn it IMO.

[monmouth3]

6. Agreed. This "she deserves it" or is "next in line" is so right-wingish thinking. Not in my book..

[davidpdx]

23. Agreed

A substantive primary will ensure whomever the nominee is that it is legitimate.

[juajen]

47. Funny! Who else has earned it more? NT

[karynnj]

55. No one has earned it yet - including Hillary

The Presidency is not "earned" by the accomplishments or efforts expended in the past. The nomination is won by the person who the largest number of Democrats vote for in the primary. The ONLY way to earn it is to inspire enough people to vote for you in the primary.

Polls have shown that Hillary is the preferred candidate for as many as 60% of Democrats polled. If that continues to be true, she will earn the nomination --- by winning it.

[wandy]

7. It will not be chaos. We have many good choices...............

Should Hillary Clinton decide not to run we have many alternatives that are better than anything that crawls out of the Teapublican slag pile.
Although I personalty feel that Joe Biden should be appointed VP for life (or until he gets tired of the job), Smoken Joe would be more than up to the job.
Forget that at the moment I might favor Alan Grayson, surly he would also be a good choice.
By no means forget Elisabeth Warren. That would be something.

I would bet others would also have good suggestions.

By no means take this to mean that I have any problem with Hillary Clinton.
I merely point out that us folk of the Democratic persuasion have other resources we can draw on.

[DonViejo]

10. Guess you didn't read the article, huh? eom

[wandy]

11. I may not have taken away from that article what you did........

I may not have stated my opinion in a clear manner.
My bad.

There will not be Chaos.
I doubt we will even reach the third level.

[Bjorn Against]

8. I did not think she was going to run until the PACs started to form

Now I think it is more likely than not that she will run, but I am still not convinced entirely. She is a lot older than many people realize, she will be 69 when the election takes place, if she were to serve two terms she would leave office at the age of 77. She looks much younger than she actually is and she seems to be in good health, but at that age most people are wanting to retire. And while she appears healthy to us, who knows what her doctors are telling her, at that age most people do start to encounter some health problems even if they are not visible to the rest of us.

Her age will be a factor if she runs and I think it will be a factor in making her decision as well, she still might go for it but I am sure she will be talking with her doctors before she makes a decision.

[cr8tvlde]

39. Good lord, age. Ho hum. Especially for women. Not. Relevant. 77 for Boomers is irrelevant.

Just ask any of us. Many of us are still kicking butt and taking names.

[bemildred]

9. So pretty much the same thing either way then. nt

Last edited Fri Mar 14, 2014, 08:29 PM - Edit history (1)

[whistler162]

12. Simple Ragnarok!

Last edited Fri Mar 14, 2014, 09:07 PM - Edit history (1)

[DFW]

13. Hold anything Chris Cillizza writes at arms length and clothespin your nose

Last edited Sat Mar 15, 2014, 05:39 AM - Edit history (2)

Most of what he writes reeks of Republican-tilted BS with just enough contrived "wittiness" to make the reader thinks he's keeping an open mind and trying to be an objective observer. He is not objective. Objectionable is more like it.

He doesn't want Hillary. He would LOVE chaos. On our side, anyway. He's George Will light.

Mark Halperin doesn't write "terrific pieces" unless you lean way to the right. No better giveaway than that.

[Whisp]

14. No chaos, just a huge sigh of relief.

Although I would really like her to run just for the comedy she would provide during the primaries.

[Beacool]

20. Ridiculous comment.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Does anyone really think she wont?

Come on. Those two? They'd chew through a cinder block wall to get up on the stage at that convention.

She's running.

[BlueDemKev]

16. Let's pray hard that doesn't happen...

...and that Hillary is our shoo-in nominee while the Rethugs kill themselves in an bloody primary. But FIRST, let's focus on the 2014 midterm elections!

[davidpdx]

24. We don't want a shoo-in nominee who everyone is expect to fall behind

What we need is a substantive primary where we hear from many candidates. If she wins, she wins.

I agree with you on focusing on this year. Nothing will happen until after November. No one in the party is going to distract the focus from a general election in which we have to do well in order to be in the position to have a strong year in 2016 (I personally don't think we'll win the House, but I hope I'm wrong).

[Beacool]

26. The House is lost.

Let's try not to lose the Senate too, which at the moment looks like a strong likelihood.

[davidpdx]

31. If we don't hold on to the Senate, I'm not sure what will happen

That is going to be a very nasty two years.

[Beacool]

35. At first I thought that the possibility of losing the Senate was all RW talk.

I'm not so sure anymore. It now seems that there's a real chance that we might lose it.

[juajen]

48. I'm not sure I agree that the House is lost.

I believe we will pick up seats because of the waste of time and money the pugs spent trying to repeal Obamacare; also, by that time we should see even more proof that they have been lying through their teeth about Obamacare. Additionally, they have made the House freeze on important legislation, such as imigration reform, unemployment benefits restoration, the minimum wage, etc. The label "The Do Nothing Congress" is theirs and they're stuck with it. Not to mention, that many states are suffering because of their state refusing to use medicaid expansion money to help with health insurance in their states.

[Myrina]

28. ^ this, x100

N/T

[Splinter Cell]

42. Hillary is the worst nominee we cold have.

Let's hope she's not a "shoo-in".

[Historic NY]

54. For the GOP you mean.

[Beacool]

56. Some people must live in parallel worlds.

[Rozlee]

17. She does have more star power than anyone else in the field.

Plus, conservative hatred for her is so visceral, that I'm sure she could win just by the alienation it would cause among women when the misogyny explodes in the GOP. And it would be misogyny on steroids if she ran. They would let it all hang out. They would rein it in a lot more if it's anyone else but her. Hillary-hatred is so toxic among conservatives that they'd have the ugly going at full blast. Republicans lost the female vote by a 12 point margin in 2012. I'd imagine that they'd lose it by a lot more if Hillary ran. She'd get the Sandra Fluke treatment 24/7 until the election was over and every day of her presidency.

[blkmusclmachine]

19. HRC

Ugh.

[Beacool]

21. If Hillary runs I don't know what would be more fun,

if watching RW heads explode or watching DU heads explode.

[daybranch]

22. what the heck

has Hillary ever accomplished? What the heck does she stand for that we like? What the heck is it more important to elect a woman than to look at who is best for our people? What the heck progressive credentials does Hillary even have? She is to the right of Obama, or certainly was in the last battles. If he is a centrist and many of us think he may be to the right of that, and she is to his right why would we want her? You know other than she is a woman and can win. I just cannot stand to vote for a promoter of economic injustice. I would hate to believe she is best we Democrats have. Lets have some primaries and actually be democratic. Republicans buy elections. I thought we were Democrats and believed in democracy in our primaries. If Clinton's building up a huge campaign organization and war-chest this long before the election, I would have to say many in the Democratic establishment care only about winning elections and very little about doing what is best for the country.

Compared to Barack Obama , we would be turning the country back to more big business control. I do not believe in Back, I believe in forward as a progressive.

[Beacool]

25. Your first sentence, you sound like a Right winger.

That's what they keep asking. Do your own research. She has accomplished much in her life. If you prefer another candidate that's fine, but don't disparage her achievements.

I think that it is a myth that she is to the Right of Obama, that's not so. Check their FISA vote in 2008.

As for the primaries, of course there will be other candidates running. What some on the Left don't seem to grasp is that she is very popular within the party. The vast majority of Democrats want her to run, even those who call themselves "liberal". BTW, Hillary is not building anything at the moment. There is a super PAC (Ready for Hillary) that is building a potential campaign in case she does want to run again. That PAC is a true grassroots organization, their donations range from $1 to $100. The other PAC (Priorities USA Action) was a big help to Obama's two presidential campaigns. This PAC will go after the big dollar donations. Both PACs have pledged to help the Democratic nominee, regardless whether it's Hillary or not.

[exboyfil]

29. Clinton has the resume

Both legislative and executive experience. I would prefer a better choice. Solving our problems requires new, innovative thinking and someone willing to challenge the existing power structure. You will not get that from her. What you will get is a sane pragmatist who I think honestly cares about the public trust.

On the other side you will have the third Bush. The guy who helped steal the 2000 election for his brother one of the worst presidents ever.

[Splinter Cell]

43. "executive experience"

What "executive experience" does she have exactly? Her disastrous term as SOS?

[Beacool]

44. Really?

Are you saying that Obama and Hillary's foreign policies are a disaster? Care to elaborate?

Do remember that presidents set policy and SOS enact them.

[juajen]

49. Sorry, this doesn't deserve a reply post!

[Beacool]

30. Where do you get that from, Drudge?

He, Limbaugh and the supermarket rags were proclaiming that recently.

[polichick]

34. What illness?

[Sunlei]

32. Mrs. Clinton will keep republicans guessing to the last possible second.

only chaos will be republicans in-fighting for money from their few big donors. none of their huge anti-Americans empire works for free.

By the way the republican tea party 'leaders' need new suits, they're wearing the same suits they wore years ago. Rbagger hobbits need cash!

[bigwillq]

33. Sheer joy.

Run, Hillary. Far, far away.

[winter is coming]

36. I don't know which I find more insulting:

The implication that if Hillary decides to run, we're done, there's no one else to look at or think about, or

The implication that competitive primaries would somehow be a bad thing.

[bigwillq]

37. Competitive primaries will fracture the party

So if Hillary runs, we all must support her like good little sheep.

Bah!

[JackRiddler]

38. Vote Clinton Or World Ends!

Slogan for the win, amirite?

[cr8tvlde]

40. My Dad used to say, "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face." n/t

[Cha]

41. Whew, there's a bunch of brainwashed idiots commenting on the WaPO... "Obama

Raised Debt 10 times more than anyone else!!!1111"

thanks DV interesting that I took with salt because .. well.. Chris Cillizza

[Iceberg Louie]

46. We've got two years yet to build "star power"

Joe Public surely had never heard of Barack Obama in March 2006, but they definitely knew who HRC was. I am not convinced she would have beat McCain in '08 (Sarah Palin notwithstanding). I am not convinced the "it's her turn" meme will be anything but a liability in '16. I am further not convinced that '16 is a shoe-in for the Democratic Party by any stretch. I believe it is an attainable goal, but not without a serious fight, solid messaging, and rope-a-doping the GOP's self-aggrandizing deficits. If HRC is put out there with an underlying assumption that she will coast into the White House, I fear the GOP will rig a win far more easily than we might guess. They almost took '12, were it not for some altruistic intervention on the part of Anonymous.

As far as "chaos", the right is obviously planting seeds, hoping for them to take root. We mustn't allow such cheap tactics to become self-fulfilling prophecies. We must rally for a competitive primary. I foresee a mix of populist messaging (including advocacy for marijuana legalization) and personal appeal making for the winning formula either way. IMHO, HRC has neither of these qualities. But we still have two years for the right candidate to emerge and build "star power". Let us not count our chickens before they hatch.

[Joe Magarac]

50. Alternate scenario: Elizabeth Warren and no chaos. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. Whichever Dem runs, let it be the one with the best chance of winning. That's all I care about nt

[SheilaT]

52. Hillary is not inevitable.

I, for one, sincerely hopes she does not run. I do not get the way so many here think she is going to be God's gift to the Democratic Party in two years.

She was far from that in '08, when an awful lot of posters here assumed that just because she was running she would win. Notice, she didn't.

It's not only her age that's against her. I'm all of a year younger, I'm in excellent health, and I wouldn't be considering going for what's one of the more difficult jobs out there in two years.

But my biggest objection is that she brings nothing new to the table. It's bad enough that Obama kept on far too many from previous administrations. With Hillary we'd be reaching back nearly thirty years. Bill Clinton's theme song was "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow". I'm afraid that hers would be something along the lines of "Don't Do Anything but Look Back". I don't think there's an actual song out there with that title, but that's what the theme would be.

We need new choices, new people.

[Zambero]

53. If that question were asked 8 years ago...

Before Barrack Obama emerged as a candidate, would "chaos" have been predicted as an outcome? Hard to say, but most would acknowledge that a year is an eternity in politics.