Hillary Clinton for president. It's official!

[Baffalo]

Can I just state how much I hate the Electoral College system? Seriously, it's a piece of garbage.

The reason the Democrats can't be seen letting Hillary have the nomination now is because they have to play to states like Ohio and Vermont, who want their Caucus and Primary so they can go "We're important because we pick the president!" But here's the thing... the Democrats have had the entire Obama presidency to go back and review Hillary, build a platform that she can work with to her advantage, and then make a strong push. They've got someone in mind, and I bet you it's someone with very little going for them politically who is more of a show pony than anything else.

It's the same thing that happens when an incumbent president runs. The Republicans threw out 4 candidates to fight over it, and in the end went with Mitt Romney. The idea isn't to send your best bet out there, but to rather make a show of it. Very rarely does an incumbent president lose (the last being George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton back in 1992 and before that, Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan in 1980). So they put out a candidate who can give the president a run for his money but who isn't likely to win. That way, they're not just giving the Democrats a win, but they're not wrecking their power base by throwing their weight behind a candidate who is more likely to lose than win. They're saving their heavy hitters for this upcoming election.

So what we'll see is someone trotted out to run against Hillary in the primaries. Someone who opposes her just enough that the two don't get mixed up, but who is somehow unappealing to the majority of Democrats and who won't get in Hillary's way. Obama was a bit of a surprise, really, so they'll probably play it safe this time around and let her face someone who isn't exactly a threat.

Of course, the Republicans are going to be playing a game of "I know that you know that I know". They've had 8 years, and probably have a good idea of who the Democrats were planning to push. So they do what any political party does, and plan accordingly. They've been moving people around, pushing agendas and setting up their candidates, someone whose record is cleaned up and pretty, appealing to the right groups, massing money and power... and they don't have just one candidate. They've got two or three ready to go, and they're waiting to see what Hillary's platform is and adjust their strategy accordingly. I guarantee we probably won't see a Republican candidate for at least a week or possibly a month after Hillary's announcement until the GOP thinks they've got the perfect moment to strike.

[Rogue 9]

As far as the "American Candidates that Run again" Omega18 said it in more detail, but there HAS been a trend of Candidates who loose the Primary running again.

McCain lost nominee in 2000, ran again in 2008.
Romney lost nominee in 2008, ran again 2012
and Now Hillary, after loosing the nominee in 2008, is running again now.

I suppose they needed to tighten up their campaigns.

[Elfdart]

Because a fracturus, drawn out fight among many candidates is SO what the Democrats need right?

Worked out well enough in 2008.

[Lonestar]

Because a fracturus, drawn out fight among many candidates is SO what the Democrats need right?

Better than that of a "Imperial Candidate" who basically walks right in and takes it because she has a lot of levers she can pull in the DNC.

[Simon_Jester]

It's the same thing that happens when an incumbent president runs. The Republicans threw out 4 candidates to fight over it, and in the end went with Mitt Romney. The idea isn't to send your best bet out there, but to rather make a show of it. Very rarely does an incumbent president lose (the last being George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton back in 1992 and before that, Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan in 1980).

To be fair, that's two of the last six presidents to seek re-election, so the track record may not be as bad as you think. And Carter beat Ford before him, so, arguably, three of the last seven presidents to seek reelection lost.

Going a LONG way back... hm. Nixon won reelection, Johnson didn't even bother seeking it so I think that counts as a loss, Eisenhower won it, so going back to 1952 we have four losses out of ten. Truman won it, FDR won it on three consecutive occasions- four out of fourteen, not so favorable. Hoover lost his reelection bid, Coolidge won it, so did Wilson, Taft lost, Roosevelt won...

Going clear back to 1900, out of nineteen times a sitting president sought reelection, they lost six times- and three of the wins were the same overwhelmingly popular man. 6 out of 19 isn't such bad odds, and 6 out of 16 is pretty good arguably, although it's worse odds than a 'challenger' faces when there's no incumbent, I suppose.

So they put out a candidate who can give the president a run for his money but who isn't likely to win. That way, they're not just giving the Democrats a win, but they're not wrecking their power base by throwing their weight behind a candidate who is more likely to lose than win. They're saving their heavy hitters for this upcoming election.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Mitt Romney WAS a heavy hitter. He had weaknesses, but no more of them than any other Republican candidate, which frankly does a lot to explain why he won the primary election in the face of all the flakes and clowns running against him.

Conversely, McCain was arguably a relatively weak candidate, even though 2008 wasn't a run against an incumbent.

Of course, the Republicans are going to be playing a game of "I know that you know that I know". They've had 8 years, and probably have a good idea of who the Democrats were planning to push. So they do what any political party does, and plan accordingly. They've been moving people around, pushing agendas and setting up their candidates, someone whose record is cleaned up and pretty, appealing to the right groups, massing money and power... and they don't have just one candidate. They've got two or three ready to go, and they're waiting to see what Hillary's platform is and adjust their strategy accordingly. I guarantee we probably won't see a Republican candidate for at least a week or possibly a month after Hillary's announcement until the GOP thinks they've got the perfect moment to strike.

So what do you call Ted Cruz? Is he just revolting against the party leadership?

[Mr Bean]

So what do you call Ted Cruz? Is he just revolting against the party leadership?

He's a Ron Paul, running to raise his profile and get in debates to get himself name recognition. Not running to win, even at the end Paul was not looking to win but to put delegations together of like minded libertarians into place to benefit I assume future libertarians in addition to his son rather than just his son alone.

[Elheru Aran]

Rubio has announced a run:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Perhaps a sticky for 2016 Presidential Campaign would be in order?

[Civil War Man]

Conversely, McCain was arguably a relatively weak candidate, even though 2008 wasn't a run against an incumbent.

While McCain had his problems as a candidate (his age, for instance, was certainly not a mark in his favor), the biggest liability in his campaign was not him per se, but his decision to select Sarah Palin as his running mate. He was a weak candidate more because he was completely overshadowed by his VP pick. It didn't help that he was so often stuck in damage control mode because of Palin's tendency to make really bizarre mistakes. She made them so reliably that's she's practically a living embodiment of Poe's Law, considering that some still attribute stuff that Tina Fey's parody said to her.

[Elheru Aran]

And Romney suffered from an image as a rich, elitist prick who was out of touch with the common man (which may have been true). That 47% comment was all Obama needed. McCain, for all he came off the doddering senile senior citizen on occasion, at least had legit war-hero chops to ride on, and was personable enough when he wasn't in campaign mode.

A big part of the problem with Presidential campaigns is how it forces candidates to present a front... they conduct their business in one fashion for most of their political career, and then they have to adjust rapidly to pander to the voters. I suspect Hillary will have less trouble with this, largely because she's done it before and can remain fairly consistent, but the guys who are putting their foot in like Rubio and Cruz are going to have to deal with some tough feedback.

[Borgholio]

Especially when people remember that Cruz was primarily the one responsible for shutting down the government and putting millions out of work. Yes, I know the whole thing was much bigger than one man, but he was the name people tended to associate with it and thus that reputation will stick with him.

[Elheru Aran]

I dunno about the government shutdown actually. I can't say that it did much on the state level other than provide juicy discussion material for a few news cycles and allow members of the different parties more flack to fling at each other...

[Borgholio]

Yeah it didn't have that much of a long-term effect, thankfully. And it has happened in the past, IIRC. But still it DID happen, and his name WAS attached to it, and he said he wasn't sorry it happened.

[Elheru Aran]

True. Clinton's big problem is that the Republicans are going to harp on Benghazi for all they're worth, and she won't be able to shake the association with both Obama and Bill. That's going to be trouble for her, even if sensible people are perfectly aware it's bullshit.

[Borgholio]

Yeah but didn't several Congressional committees already say the White House really didn't do anything wrong and that the failures were systemic and not a fault of any individual? There are naturally going to be a good number of blowholes who want to see Hillary hang for treason, but the people who actually did the investigation didn't find any wrongdoing.

[General Zod]

True. Clinton's big problem is that the Republicans are going to harp on Benghazi for all they're worth, and she won't be able to shake the association with both Obama and Bill. That's going to be trouble for her, even if sensible people are perfectly aware it's bullshit.

I'm expecting a lot of noise about email-gate and keeping secrets safe.

[Borgholio]

I'm expecting a lot of noise about email-gate and keeping secrets safe.

That's been debunked too. The rules regarding secure email did not take effect until after Hillary's departure. And she DID turn over many thousands of emails upon request. So if the GOP tries to use that angle to attack her, they'll pretty much be grasping at straws.

[General Zod]

I'm expecting a lot of noise about email-gate and keeping secrets safe.

That's been debunked too. The rules regarding secure email did not take effect until after Hillary's departure. And she DID turn over many thousands of emails upon request. So if the GOP tries to use that angle to attack her, they'll pretty much be grasping at straws.

It's not like they've ever cared much about substance.

[Borgholio]

It's not like they've ever cared much about substance.

True, but having a baseless claim in the hands of idiots is better than having a valid point.

[General Zod]

It's not like they've ever cared much about substance.

True, but having a baseless claim in the hands of idiots is better than having a valid point.

The problem is that these idiots are going to be the ones voting.

[Borgholio]

Hopefully this time they're simply out numbered, like they were last time.