Problematic for Hillary, if Bill agrees to become U.S. Ambassador to Ireland.

[heatmaster]

According to sources and the rumor grapevine; Obama is considering current Ambassador to Ireland, Rooney with Clinton; if so, doesn't such a possibility complicate matters for Hillary with 2016 on the distant horizon? Thoughts.

[Mr. Morden]

According to sources and the rumor grapevine; Obama is considering current Ambassador to Ireland, Rooney with Clinton; if so, doesn't such a possibility complicate matters for Hillary with 2016 on the distant horizon? Thoughts.

How does it complicate matters?

[heatmaster]

Hillary if she runs, is aiming not to make the same mistake she made in '08, when she had Bill almost muzzled; this time she needs to have Bubba front and center, as well as an integral part of campaign decision making as well as developing strategy; being in Dublin, means Bill ain't at ground zero!

[Mr. Morden]

Hillary if she runs, is aiming not to make the same mistake she made in '08, when she had Bill almost muzzled; this time she needs to have Bubba front and center, as well as an integral part of campaign decision making as well as developing strategy; being in Dublin, means Bill ain't at ground zero!

No, that's the opposite of the problem she had in '08.  Bill was *too* front and center during the early primaries, to the point that he was generating a backlash for his aggressive attacks on Obama.  When the campaign finally put a leash on him, she started doing better:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/us/politics/27clinton.html

[Paul Kemp]

According to sources and the rumor grapevine; Obama is considering current Ambassador to Ireland, Rooney with Clinton; if so, doesn't such a possibility complicate matters for Hillary with 2016 on the distant horizon? Thoughts.

Where are these sources and rumors?

[heatmaster]

They are reliable, some politically connected people in both the Irish and English news & media outlets, who I happen to know, tipped me off. If they know, then it's a dead cert there's a possibility it's under consideration.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

They are reliable, some politically connected people in both the Irish and English news & media outlets, who I happen to know, tipped me off.

Cool. We can now disregard this as made-up BS.

/thread

[Niemeyerite]

If Hillary runs, she has the nomination in the bag. She doesn't need Bill this time. And those rumors are probably false, BTW.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If Hillary runs, she has the nomination in the bag.

Jesus H. Christ. To say with four years to go that someone has the nomination already in a bag...

[Paul Kemp]

If Hillary runs, she has the nomination in the bag.

Jesus H. Christ. To say with four years to go that someone has the nomination already in a bag...

I had to double check and make sure that post wasn't from 2004.

[Niemeyerite]

If Hillary runs, she has the nomination in the bag.

Jesus H. Christ. To say with four years to go that someone has the nomination already in a bag...

I had to double check and make sure that post wasn't from 2004.

We don't have any Obamas this time. Hillary would have been a shoo-in against Edwards or any other, but Obama 2004 speech and the "hope" and "change" he promissed was something not even Hillary could beat. Who do you think could beat Hillary this time? Remember that her approvals are higher now than they were in 2007-208, too.

[Paul Kemp]

If Hillary runs, she has the nomination in the bag.

Jesus H. Christ. To say with four years to go that someone has the nomination already in a bag...

I had to double check and make sure that post wasn't from 2004.

We don't have any Obamas this time. Hillary would have been a shoo-in against Edwards or any other, but Obama 2004 speech and the "hope" and "change" he promissed was something not even Hillary could beat. Who do you think could beat Hillary this time? Remember that her approvals are higher now than they were in 2007-208, too.

When was the last time the Democrats went with the expected candidate? Incumbents aside of course.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

When was the last time the Democrats went with the expected candidate? Incumbents aside of course.

Other than Gore, which you might deem the incumbent, not in a long long time, and certainly not in 2008.....it was Hillary's to lose.

[Paul Kemp]

When was the last time the Democrats went with the expected candidate? Incumbents aside of course.

Other than Gore, which you might deem the incumbent, not in a long long time, and certainly not in 2008.....it was Hillary's to lose.

Oops forgot about Gore but yea that seems to be an exception rather than a rule.

I'm not saying Hillary can't or won't be the nominee but a lot can change and usually does.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

When was the last time the Democrats went with the expected candidate? Incumbents aside of course.

Other than Gore, which you might deem the incumbent, not in a long long time, and certainly not in 2008.....it was Hillary's to lose.

Oops forgot about Gore but yea that seems to be an exception rather than a rule.

I'm not saying Hillary can't or won't be the nominee but a lot can change and usually does.

Indeed.  We have to stipulate that Hillary even would consider it.....I'm not ready to do that, in fact I don't believe she'll run at all after the 2008 debacle,but you're right, a lot can change in the next few years.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

When was the last time the Democrats went with the expected candidate? Incumbents aside of course.

Other than Gore, which you might deem the incumbent, not in a long long time, and certainly not in 2008.....it was Hillary's to lose.

Mondale was the expected candidate in 1984. Not an encouraging example.

Before that? Hard question actually. Using "Vice President as heir apparent" logic we can say Humphrey, but LBJ was long expected to run again and HHH was pretty much a stand-in for him.

Kerry, Dukakis, Carter, McGovern, Stevenson (1952)... none of them were early favorites.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/16682942-452/will-bill-clinton-be-next-ambassador-to-ireland.html
This is the only tidbit I have found on it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If Hillary runs, she has the nomination in the bag.

Jesus H. Christ. To say with four years to go that someone has the nomination already in a bag...

I had to double check and make sure that post wasn't from 2004.

We don't have any Obamas this time. Hillary would have been a shoo-in against Edwards or any other, but Obama 2004 speech and the "hope" and "change" he promissed was something not even Hillary could beat. Who do you think could beat Hillary this time? Remember that her approvals are higher now than they were in 2007-208, too.

Tell me who in November 2008 actually expected Obama to be the next nominee before he even took his Senate seat? Sure, there was a lot of buzz "he might be President one day", "he'd make a great VP choice in 2008" but come on...

The GOP have a pattern of nominating the expected candidates. The Democrats not really. For example, everyone were talking how unstoppable Gary Hart is after Mondale's defeat and we all know how he ended up.

[Paul Kemp]

Kerry, Dukakis, Carter, McGovern, Stevenson (1952)... none of them were early favorites.

Clinton.

[Mr. Morden]

If Hillary runs, she has the nomination in the bag.

Jesus H. Christ. To say with four years to go that someone has the nomination already in a bag...

I had to double check and make sure that post wasn't from 2004.

We don't have any Obamas this time. Hillary would have been a shoo-in against Edwards or any other, but Obama 2004 speech and the "hope" and "change" he promissed was something not even Hillary could beat. Who do you think could beat Hillary this time? Remember that her approvals are higher now than they were in 2007-208, too.

Tell me who in November 2008 actually expected Obama to be the next nominee before he even took his Senate seat? Sure, there was a lot of buzz "he might be President one day", "he'd make a great VP choice in 2008" but come on...

Uhhhh…..I'd say everyone thought Obama would be the next nominee after Nov. 2008.  Once he was elected president, he was pretty heavily favored to be nominated for reelection. 

If you mean Nov. 2004, sure.  But it doesn't matter.  We've already had a black president now.  If a Cory Booker or someone like that rose up, he'd have a much tougher time against HRC than Obama had.  The next big "thing" for the Dems for identity politics purposes is a female president, and Clinton is the most obvious vehicle for that to happen.  Who might mount a challenge to her?  Elizabeth Warren?

Clinton's in a far stronger position within the party now than she was 8 years ago, and far less likely to fall to a challenger, as I've argued before, so I'll just link to previous points:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=152668.msg3277351#msg3277351

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The expected candidate on the Democratic side usually doesn't run.  Mario Cuomo didn't run in 1992.  Gore didn't in 2004.  If they'd run, they probably would have won the nomination.  And sure, HRC probably won't run either, but if she does, then she's heavily favored.

I don't think it's so much that the Democratic Party's DNA prevents it from nominating favorites.  Rather, it's that we simply don't see many cases on the Democratic side where a candidate starts out with an enormous lead in the polls, and that candidate actually follows through and runs.  When that does happen though, they often win (e.g., Mondale 1984, Gore 2000).

[Niemeyerite]

If Hillary runs, she has the nomination in the bag.

Jesus H. Christ. To say with four years to go that someone has the nomination already in a bag...

I had to double check and make sure that post wasn't from 2004.

We don't have any Obamas this time. Hillary would have been a shoo-in against Edwards or any other, but Obama 2004 speech and the "hope" and "change" he promissed was something not even Hillary could beat. Who do you think could beat Hillary this time? Remember that her approvals are higher now than they were in 2007-208, too.

Tell me who in November 2008 actually expected Obama to be the next nominee before he even took his Senate seat? Sure, there was a lot of buzz "he might be President one day", "he'd make a great VP choice in 2008" but come on...

The GOP have a pattern of nominating the expected candidates. The Democrats not really. For example, everyone were talking how unstoppable Gary Hart is after Mondale's defeat and we all know how he ended up.

I still think that Clinton is the favourite, as she will be supported by Bill and Obama (yes, Bill campaigned for him in exchange of something). But even if she doesn't get Obama's support, many, many high-profile dems, mega-donors and blacks+latinos+the rust belt+women will give her the nomination, don't you think?
And keep in mind that Obama is unique, who, in 2016, can challenge Clinton like Obama did in 2008? Plus she has more support now than she had 4 years ago, she's beloved not only by democrats, but also by independents and some republicans.
If Clinton wants to be our nominee, barring a scandal, she will. That's what I believe now, and will continue to believe until I see an Obama running.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Who would be a viable challenger to Hillary? It depends on whether or not she's learned her lesson from 2008 and puts together a competent campaign committee or not.  The 2008 nomination was hers to lose. I think Obama was initially running just to establish his future viability. Then poor campaign management on the part of Clinton's campaign suddenly put the nomination within reach and he went for it. The rest is history.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Uhhhh…..I'd say everyone thought Obama would be the next nominee after Nov. 2008.  Once he was elected president, he was pretty heavily favored to be nominated for reelection. 

Sorry, stupid typo.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Kerry, Dukakis, Carter, McGovern, Stevenson (1952)... none of them were early favorites.

Clinton.

Yes, but hardly was considered kind of "unstoppable juggernaut" back in 1989.

[Paul Kemp]

Kerry, Dukakis, Carter, McGovern, Stevenson (1952)... none of them were early favorites.

Clinton.

Yes, but hardly was considered kind of "unstoppable juggernaut" back in 1989.

Wait...what...I was adding Clinton to you list of candidates who weren't early favorites...