You don't expect Hillary to run, if the GOP controls both houses of Congress after 2014.

[CK_John]

I don't expect her to run anyway but with both houses against her it would be a waste of time.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Hillary needs to take some lessons in "classy" and reflect on how cool it was to be SOS.

And get out of the way of progress.

The harder she fights the angrier we should become.

Not that she's fighting.

I don't know her.

[Beacool]

9. Hillary doesn't need to take any lessons in class. She already is classy.

Who is this "we" you talk of? Last time I checked, the vast majority of Democrats support her above any other candidate.



I do know her.

[NYC_SKP]

10. Yes she is classy and now she can be even more classy and not run against a progressive. nt

[Beacool]

11. As if the people who are being pushed here could win in 2016.

Have you seen how these people poll? Most are in the single digits. How do you expect to get moderates to vote for them?

[NYC_SKP]

12. Poll? How did Barack Hussein Osama poll in, let's see, 2005, for the 2008 election...

I believe 2005 would be the equivalent of now.

Let's look: Oh, dear! None even exist!

[Beacool]

14. Lightning will not strike twice.

2016 will not be 2008, for one thing it will take a lot of hard work to keep the WH.

[NYC_SKP]

16. Beacool. I actually looked for polls for 2005, BHO v Hill. None exist. None were done.

Who won:

She may even decline by the time this happens.

[Beacool]

19. I don't care if there was no poll done in 2005.

There are plenty of them now and none of the people usually mentioned on this site polls well. Of course three years is a lifetime and there will be several people running in 2016.

I don't get this need to continually bash a very popular Democrat because some would prefer a different candidate. At this point no one is in the running.

[NYC_SKP]

20. Beacool. She was on the board of Walmart, she championed outsourcing to India. What does it take?

She had a great run, she and Bill.

Why must we endure more Clintons.

They go back to the 1990's!!!

Surpluses, cool, NAFTA, bad. Let's move on!!!

Wouldn't Wendy Davis be AWESOME?

[Beacool]

31. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[NYC_SKP]

32. Wouldn't be the first time, my friend!

And it won't be the last!

[Gothmog]

34. Wendy Davis needs to get past 2014

If Wendy Davis wins in 2014, I expect other Democrats to do well and doubt that we will lose the Senate

[William769]

26. Check you spelling.

[NYC_SKP]

28. Potato Potata... You know how that happened? It's a cool story!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4093854

Got on the Covered California site phone help line. Who do you suppose helped me save about $884/month?

[Skip Intro]

22. What? Dude, I love you, but Hillary is as classy as they come. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

23. She is a great classy gal. She'll be freaktastic when she endorses Wendy Davis or another....

Great leaders know when to recognize the leadership around them.

When that recognition fails, their leadership fails.

[Skip Intro]

24. OK, 2016 here we go. Wendy has no chance of winning the nom,

much less the election.

Sorry. It might be a great daydream, but it ain't going to happen.


On edit: besides, she's running for Gov of Texas, isn't she? Two years later a run for the WH? Nah...

[NYC_SKP]

29. Wendy might not win the nom, but she'll win the Nom Nom Nom!!!

Nom Nom Nom!

[Skip Intro]

30. Why did that crack me up?

[Spirochete]

41. Wendy won't be running for Prez

She'll be in Austin, halfway through a term of cleaning up the messes made by Ricky Retardo and George W Shortbus

[hrmjustin]

2. If it is a waste of time for her then it is a waste of time for any democrat.

I don't think it is a waste of time and I think she will run and win.

[MrsKirkley]

3. With Republicans controlling both Senate and House, we'd need a Democratic president to save the ACA

With Republican majority in Congress and a Republican president, we'd go back to pre-existing conditions and lifetime limits.

[CK_John]

4. Maybe we should worry more about 2014 and let 2016 wait awhile.

[LadyHawkAZ]

6. THIS!

[Gothmog]

36. Agreed

[JoePhilly]

5. I'm pretty sure she'd tough it out.

[JVS]

7. I've been under the impression that centrist democrats prefer having at most one chamber of congress

Contol of both chambers plus the presidency creates an environment where they don't have very good excuses for not passing legislation. Why would having neither be a waste of Hillary's time? Is she eager to get legislation passed?

[CK_John]

8. Huh?

[tkmorris]

13. It's far too early to prognosticate but...

Even if the Dems were to lose the Senate in 2014 (I'd bet against that right now) there is a much better than even chance they retake it in 2016. We will have 10 Senate seats in play that fall; Republicans have 24 seats they have to defend. The House is different in that every seat is on the block every cycle of course, but that can mean large swings are possible there. It's gerrymandered all to hell and gone but I do expect the Dems to make net gains there in 14, and 2016 should be very competitive to see who controls it.

I think the only thing that keeps Hillary from running would be health issues.

[CK_John]

15. Also health issues in her family need to be considered.

[Gothmog]

37. I agree with your analysis

The GOP will have more vulnerable seats up in 2016

[Skip Intro]

17. I'm sure it is a factor, but I think she's already decided to run. n/t

[Tx4obama]

18. The parties that will control Senate & House in 2017 will not be determined until the 2016 election

So, the issue of who controls the Senate and House before the 2016 election is irrelevant and will not affect Hillary's or any other person's decision to run in 2016.

I really tried to figure out how the 2014-2015-2015 congress could affect Hilary - but I do NOT see how.

[CK_John]

21. About 1/3 of the senate up in 2014, we only have a 6 seat lead. The total

campaign will take place with the results of the 2014 election therefore that's the controlling environment. 2017 will be the working environment.

[Tx4obama]

35. But don't forget the seats that are up in 2016

2016

Democrats are expected to have 10 seats up for election, and Republicans are expected to have 24 seats up for election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016

The Senators do not control the Presidential campaigns - so I still do not know what your point is


There is a very good chance that we will take the White House, Senate, and House in 2016

[CK_John]

38. It's the atmosphere of winning or losing, running from behind or being out front.

It's all about perception,

[William769]

25. I reject the premise of the question.

The republicans will not control both chambers in 2014 or 2016.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. Hillary Clinton will run if she wants, and I expect her to run. regardless of who controls Congress

It would be real easy to end all speculation. She hasn't done anything to end speculation. She will be in the primary. And

[Gothmog]

33. Even if control of the Senate flips in 2014, the Democrats can regain control in 2016

The 2010 tea bag sweep put in a number of vulnerable republicans including Kirk in Ill., Twoomey in Pa., Johnson in Wisconsin and Rubio in Florida. I would give the Democrats a good chance of picking up several Senate seats in 2016

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Shouldn't be a problem. She's well schooled in bi-partisanship. See her IWR vote for evidence.

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. Because 1/3 of the Senate and all of the House won't be up for re-election in 2016?

Oh...wait.

But yes, 2014 is more important than 2016, at present.