The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Short Answer: ‘No’

Posted on | February 25, 2013 | 35 Comments

Jonathan Martin of Politico floats a question: “Dems 2016: Will Hillary Clinton clear the field?” And the answer is, “no.”

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is almost 100 percent certain to run and is already assembling his 2016 presidential campaign. Republicans should not make the mistake, as many did in the lead-up to 2008, of basing their entire plan on beating Hillary.

In fact, it’s by no means certain that Clinton will even seek the nomination in 2016 and — more to the point — Republicans have got to put 2016 out of their minds for the time being and focus laser-like on winning the 2014 mid-term elections, now less than 21 months away.

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • gwheelockvan

    I think there should be a new member of the Justice League of America, “Politco.” His duty shall be to seek out all blatherers such as Martin who do Clinton articles in the next 36 months. Once located these scribes need to be taken to the median of the local freeway where their tongues can be stretched out over the blown off shreds of a truck tire and then fed a full clip from a nail gun.

  • Jaynie59

    I wouldn’t be so sure. I think Hillary will run and she’ll win. What’s better to follow the first black president than the first woman president? The media would just…orgasm…all over itself.
    It doesn’t matter who the Republican candidate is. Too many people will never vote for a Republican president. The new definition of an “undecided” voter is whether they’ll vote for the Democrat or stay home.
    I like Dr. Ben Carson’s idea of the Logic Party. Now, that MIGHT stand a chance. Maybe. Someday.

  • FenelonSpoke

    Some conservative websites insist Michelle Obama is being given a higher profile so that she will be run as the candidate for 2016-a very disturbing idea, IMO.

  • Matthew W

    BWAHHAHAAAHAA!!
    Any one really taking that idea as serious?

  • http://twitter.com/richard_mcenroe richard mcenroe

    There’s already someone announcing they’ll primary Cornyn, so we’re off to a good start.

  • http://twitter.com/richard_mcenroe richard mcenroe

    If Hillary runs and wins, you’d better get your copy of John Ringo’s “The Last Centurion” before it’s banned — or burned for heat.

  • http://twitter.com/RoxeanneDeLuca Roxeanne de Luca

    I think our best bet is to lose in 2014 – well, make gains in the Senate, lose the House by a tiny margin – so that Democrats will be stuck holding the bag when ObamaCare hits the fan. Of course, we must work on keeping the governor’s seats in states that we won in 2010, advancing on the state levels, and otherwise putting up good candidates.

    Our epic, history-making win in 2010 may well be why Romney lost by a handful of votes in 2012. The Republicans tempered Obama’s agenda to be more American-friendly, but all low-information voters saw was a better agenda. (Yes, even total gridlock is better than Obama’s agenda.) If 2015-2016 is a repeat of 2009-2010, the Republicans will win in 2016, even if they put up a rotting cockroach.

    America hates Obama’s agenda. The guy is an arrogant POS who will take any opportunity to ram his agenda down America’s throat. Let’s let him – and let the Democrats take the blame for throwing Granny off the cliff or exploding the deficit, for rationing, for skyrocketing health care costs, for unemployment, taxes, high gas prices. Let them hold the bag coming into 2016, with no one or nothing to hide behind.

    Sadly, a good 2014 win provides cover for them in 2016. We saw this in 2012 and 1996. Let’s learn.

  • http://profiles.google.com/rob5136 Rob Crawford

    And a copy of Heinlein’s “Revolt in 2100″.

    I maintain that Obama is the real-world Nehemiah Scudder.

  • Finrod Felagund

    2014 is our last best hope to retake the Senate for a while. In 2016 there will be more Republicans than Democrats up for re-election in the Senate; in 2018, well, if we win the White House in 2016 the 2018 election landscape won’t benefit us, and if we lose the White House in 2016 we’re all doomed anyways.

  • Finrod Felagund

    If Obama and the Democrats have free reign with control over Congress in 2015 and 2016, there may not end up being much of a country to save by the time of the 2016 elections.

  • Finrod Felagund

    Not to mention Harrison Bergeron.

  • http://twitter.com/RoxeanneDeLuca Roxeanne de Luca

    I wouldn’t laugh too fast. Barack’s candidacy in 2008 should have been a joke.

  • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    The media may be reflexively leftist, but within that realm they are fickle. I think Hillary will run, but just as she was steamrollered by the shiny new toy in 2008, she will be steamrollered by yet another shiny new toy in 2016.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    You cannot win by losing.

    Think about Obama’s first two years in office. Is giving him another two years with control of Congress really worth the risk – for an imaginary future advantage?

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    Heck, his 2012 reelection campaign should have been a bigger joke. He had the worst record of any President since FDR’s second term.

  • http://profiles.google.com/rob5136 Rob Crawford

    Wait. Obama’s NOT a joke?!

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Well said. Focus on victories in 2014. The only Repubs who need to worry about 2016 are those who will run as candidates. We need to run as if the future of the free world depends on it…because it does.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    First of all, remember Jonathan Martin is not our friend, or a journalist. He’s a leftist propagandist; anything he writes must be seen in the context of how it serves the greater leftist narrative.

    And Hillary is no more a lock than was Rockefeller in 1961, or Muskie in 1969. Conventional wisdom three years out is wrong at least half the time – and often the nominee ends up being someone not even on the list three years before. There are questions about her health, and despite all the accolades her tenure at State has not been successful.

    It was different when she could run as the Inevitable, Unbeatable Hillary Regina in 2008, and she couldn’t even win then against a freshman Senator with nothing of note on his record besides having written two autobiographies by the time he was 43. The shine is off that chrome now.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    This is all assuming, of course, that there will be elections in 2016.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    I understand your points but losing to win does not work. Winning to win is the only strategy that really works. That of course assumes we do not win and then morph into dems

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    I don’t really care about those elections for the Congress in 2014 and 2016, and the Presidency in the latter.

    The national government is beyond hope.

    Let’s say we maintain the control of the House and gain it in the Senate and then in 2016 elect a President. Will any of them do what it takes to really make things right? Will they weed-out and fire all of the subversive bureaucrats? Because that’s what it would take.

    Any hope we have lies in taking control in several of the Several States and mounting a federalist resistance to the Left.

  • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    Unfortunately, the opposing nominee was also a joke.

  • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    Actually, both. Slow the pace of the rot in the Beltway (since taking off and nuking the site from orbit, the only way to be sure, is unlikely to win EPA approval) while strengthening resistance to the rot in the states. But yes: if not both, then the states.

  • Pingback: 2014 And 2016: Who Cares | The Camp Of The Saints

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    If you’re interested, I expanded on my comments above here:

    http://thecampofthesaints.org/2013/02/25/2014-and-2016-who-cares/

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    We’ve got to be prudent: we have a limited amount of time and energy available.

  • RichFader

    Where else are they going to go? Marty O’Malley? Everybody west of the Appalachians who’s not an utter political geek is going to go “Who?” No, if it’s not Hillary or another woman, it’s more likely to be Joe Biden as the first developmentally-disabled president.

  • Jaynie59

    Heaven help us. The last thing this country needs is another shiny new toy like the imbecile who outshined Hillary the last time.
    Oh my God. I don’t even want to think about President Andrew Cuomo. Or even worse, Joe Biden.
    Joe Biden. All anyone needs to know about liberals is that they will defend Joe Biden while at the same time rage against that idiot Sarah Palin. And I mean rage. I once challenged my brother on the phone about how he could vote for an obvious borderline retard like Joe Biden over Sarah Palin and he got so enraged he hung up on me.

  • DaveO

    The current crop of Democrat wannabees are from the Clinton, O’Malley, Cuomo, and from the far left corner, Dayton of Minnesota, and from the right corner, Nixon.

    Booker will get detoured into taking New Jersey, on deck for 2024, along with Warner.

  • Quartermaster

    I won’t be surprised if the US has broken apart by then. I don’t think we are far from it.

  • SDN

    Then we may as well prepare for civil war.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    Dayton? He can’t find his own way to the men’s room. But I suppose he could self-fund if he wanted to.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    If we are not, it won’t be for lack of trying by Obama & company.

  • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    He can’t find his own way to the men’s room.

    If he ran he could split the Dem segment that would have gone for Biden.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    You mean you haven’t started yet?