The premise of this thread (if Hillary doesn't run) is akin to "If the moon hits the Earth."
Speculation is fun, but this would all be "Let's make believe."
The people who don't think she runs have a credible case, you don't have to talk down to it
The people who don't think she runs have built their case on wishful thinking and hoping that none of the GOP candidates have to go up against her in 2016.
You're willfully ignoring an awful lot of evidence if you sincerely think that the odds of her not running are better than the odds of her running.
No. I acknowledge it is very possible. What I am saying is that a lot of people are ignoring the possibilities that she WON'T.
1. Age. It matters.
2. Overall Health. Blood thinners are not a good sign of health, and campaigning is a stressful thing
3. Obama fatigue (might not stop her from running, but it will hurt her in the general)
4. Grandchild on the way. She might want to spend time with her family.
5. Failure of a book might discourage her
6. She KNOWS her foreign policy is atrocious
How are these and a few others I can't think of but know exist NOT legitimate arguments? How am I willfully ignoring the "inevitable" when you guys are ignoring these ideas when I wouldn't be shocked at all if she runs, but you wouldn't know what to do if she declined?
Because those ridiculous talking points are far weaker than every other indication that she has given that she will run.
Lagging sales of her book are going to determine whether or not she runs for President? Seriously? It debuted atop the NY Times bestseller list, as did Mitt Romney's book.
Grandchildren? George H.W. Bush had a couple of them by the time he ran.
Ronald Reagan was almost 70 when he assumed office.
Treating the indications for vs. against as equal, and weighing them equally, is disingenuous.
Not a newborn one to my knowledge. And everyone is different. Hillary might crow a soul when her grandchild is born and want to be with it instead of risking her own health. Blood thinners aren't a thing to scoff off. As for the Reagan point, he was unhealthy when he assumed office based on my observations. Probably beginning stages of dementia by 82. The point is, don't go being convinced. Stranger things have happened. Schweitzer declined to run for senate when everyone thought he would and the signs pointed to it, same with Warner running for president in 08. Nothing is inevitable.
So, the argument that she probably will not run is predicated on the following:
-She has a grandchild
-Book sales are disappointing
-She has gone to the hospital for health issues
-Mark Warner didn't run for President, and Brian Schweitzer didn't run for Senate
Do you even read what you're typing out? This is
seriously the evidence that someone is basing their position that Clinton will not run on? Despite writing a book, numerous speaking engagements, a fluff piece on ABC, and every other piece of evidence that points towards someone laying the groundwork for a Presidential run, those signs all point towards a likely pass?
You know what? This is par for Republicans and conservatives. The people saying this are the same people who were arguing that, despite all contrary evidence, Mitt Romney's chance of winning in 2012 was at least 50%. Wishful thinking and prayers.
