The Case for Hillary By John C. Dvorak Lots of people say they are not fans of Hillary and it appears that a lot of Democrats do not want to see her run again. She has been black-balled from most polling results, for example, if she even manages to get on a poll. Commentators on the networks constantly refer to her as a flawed candidate. People still say she is unlikeable, not warm. But compared to whom? Trump? Hillary has never said she is taking another bid off the table. Pundits and wishful thinkers are the ones hoping she does not run again. But why not? The Democrats like to point out that the election was stolen by Trump with the aid of the Russians. Is this Russian accusation sincere or not? If it is sincere then Hillary was robbed and should definitely run again. Then there is the popular vote. She won the popular vote. Unfortunately, that vote was concentrated on the coasts instead of spread around the country. This was a function of her campaign. You would hope that she’d upgrade her campaign manger and be more strategic. And, finally, there are the supporters who are still her supporters and there are a lot of them. This all begs the question “why wouldn’t you want her to run again?” Naysayers like to say she ran twice for President and that is only partly true. She ran once for the nomination and lost to Barrack Obama. She only ran once for the Presidency itself. There have been plenty of people who ran multiple times. But nobody has ever run and lost then run again and won the next year with the possible exception of Grover Cleveland who won in 1892, lost 1888, then won again in 1892. Starting off with a win makes it different. The only guy to lose first then win on the second try was Ricard Nixon who lost to Kennedy in 1960 then, after skipping 1964, Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968. The Democrats have not tried to run anyone twice since Adlai Stevenson, but he was up against the great war hero Dwight Eisenhower both times. Hillary would be running against Donald Trump who is not an Eisenhower-like figure and is constantly beaten up in the press and by Hollywood. If running the same candidate twice was ever going to work, this is the time. As things stand there are too many mostly off-beat candidates running for the Democrat nomination. Which brings us to the upcoming debates.
When the Republicans had too many candidates in 2015, Trump emerged. He was audacious and this befuddled all the hopefuls. Nobody, except Hilary, appears to have this sort of nerve within the politically-correct Democrats. This weakness invites a boring genteel “debate” that will need Hillary. Those in charge of these debates have made it clear that they do not want the humiliation of a children’s table, so they will have to come up with a completely new formula if they are going to accommodate dozens of candidates. The latest and supposed final proposal is to pick the top 20 candidates based on polling results combined with the ability to do grassroots fundraising. Then do a two-day debate. The bar for the fundraising requirement is low and gratuitous. To compete in an actual election, you need to do massive fundraising from anywhere you can get the money. Hillary can do both, probably better than anyone other than Bernie. Hillary’s entering the race may also force the lesser candidates to drop out and consider 2024 Hillary can skip the first debate and see the trends and possible chaos, then jump in to save the Party. Whatever happens, it’s crazy if she doesn’t jump in at some point and try to make even more history. --end