If Hillary Loses, Question About Her Senate Career

[Lincoln Republican]

I am of the opinion the main reason Hillary ran for the U.S. Senate from New York was to position herself to run for President in 2008, the main reason was not to serve the people of New York, but to further her own political ambitions.  Although, in all fairness, I do believe she has worked hard on their behalf, and has done a good job for her constituents.

Question

If Hillary loses the nomination to Barack, will she lose interest in her Senate career and leave the Senate, or will she continue on in the Senate and run for re-election to the Senate in 2012?

Please discuss.

[Stranger in a strange land]

She'll stay in. If Obama loses, she'll run again in 2012. I wouldn't even put it past her to run in 2016, though her moment will be long past at that point.

[Lief 🗽]

I've heard that she very much enjoys being in the Senate, and when she loses on Tuesday night, she'll probably try to become majority leader somewhere down the road.

[minionofmidas]

In thirty years, she'll be what Teddy Kennedy now is.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

In thirty years, she'll be what Teddy Kennedy now is.

Drunk & Stupid?

[Joe Republic]

In thirty years, she'll be what Teddy Kennedy now is.

Uh oh, this doesn't bode well for Huma Abedin...

Better get your wetsuit on, dear girl!

[Angel of Death]

In thirty years, she'll be what Teddy Kennedy now is.

In thirty years, she'll be 90, so perhaps someone like (a live) Strom Thurmond would be a more apt comparison.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

Everybody here has not read Hillary correctly.

She is far more manipulative than the posters are giving her credit for.

She'll sit on her hands in this election, hoping McCain will beat Obama.

McCain figures to be a one term President due to age.  That leaves an open seat in 2012.  She'll play for that game. 

[Gustaf]

I don't think Hillary will be a presidential candidate again. If you seriously contest the nomination and lose, it's hard to get back in again. McCain did it, Reagan did it, but I think it takes a lot of changes in order for it to be possible. Of course, that's what Obama is gonna deliver so who knows.

Seriously though, if Obama wins the door is definitely closed. If Obama collapses completely we could see a "I-told-you-so" case from Hillary and if McCain does not run for reelection or maybe even more likely if he does, she could run in 2012. If Obama loses narrowly I don't think she'll have much of a chance either.

I do believe that she will stay in the senate, possibly for a long time. She enjoys politics.

[JSojourner]

She's probably in the Senate for life, unless she's voted out.  I don't see her retiring unless she were offered a cabinet post or some sort of roving ambassador for women's rights type job. 

I don't want to see Bill and Hillary GONE from the public square, unlike a lot of people.  I just don't want them wielding all the power they have come to believe they are owed or entitled to. They have positive contributions to make, just as Bush Senior, Nancy Reagan, Jimmy and Roslynn and Laura Bush have to make.  I'm just not sure I want to go Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

The war is the dealbreaker though.  So if it's Hillary-McCain, I gotta go Hillary.

::: looking around for my blood pressure medicine :::

[politicaltipster]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Humphrey in 1960 and 1968 (and even after 1972 the Dems were pretty much begging him to run in 76'). Also Dewey and Stevenson both got their parties' nomination two times.

[Frodo]

If she loses, she will return to being a senator, and remain as such, possibly becoming either Senate Majority or Minority Leader, depending on the fortunes of the Senate Democratic Caucus. 

And she will remain a senator until either she or voters in New York determine she is no longer able to fulfill the duties of her office.

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Humphrey in 1960 and 1968 (and even after 1972 the Dems were pretty much begging him to run in 76'). Also Dewey and Stevenson both got their parties' nomination two times.

There are lots of examples of people making unsuccessful runs for their parties' nominations, and then running again in a subsequent year and winning.  In fact, on the GOP side, 4 of their last 5 nominees (Reagan, Bush, Dole, & McCain) didn't get the nomination on their first try.

But I think there's a difference between being an underdog running against the establishment (as with, say, Reagan in 1976 and McCain in 2000) who doesn't get it and being an establishment candidate who's the frontrunner for over a year and failing (Clinton in 2008).  In the former case, people will say "Yeah, they didn't make it the first time, but it wasn't really a level playing field, so it doesn't mean they were flawed candidates."  In the latter case, people are liable to say "How the heck did she manage to lose that when she had everything going for her?  She must be a pretty deeply flawed candidate."

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I see her staying in the Senate until around 2019, and being Leader at the end.