Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Joe Guzzardi: Hillary Clinton in 2016? It’s not likely to happen

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:00 am

Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton announced that although she served four years as President Obama’s Secretary of State, she’s an independent woman who had policy disagreements with the president.

After reading Clinton’s announcement, I immediately thought of the Washington Post column “The Fact Checker.” In his column, Glenn Kesser verifies things said by or about prominent Capitol Hill figures and, based on the truth (or lack thereof) behind assertions, assigns from one to four Pinocchios based on the truth his search uncovers.

Kesser hasn’t gotten around to Clinton yet, but I put her down for four Pinocchios. Even though she’s no longer in the Obama Cabinet, she’s still supporting Obama. Just three days ago, at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York along with her husband Bill, Clinton characterized the Affordable Health Care Act as “a big step forward for America.”

Clinton’s attempt to distance herself from Obama is perceived as her first step toward a 2016 presidential bid where she is considered the odds-on favorite. According to a poll of likely primary voters, Clinton leads the pack with 65 percent, a huge advantage over the second place Joe Biden.

Let me be the first to tell you why Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee. She’ll run, but she won’t win. Here’s my reasoning.

First, by the time the Democratic convention rolls around three years from now, Clinton will have been in the public’s eye for more than 20 years. Throughout America, serious Clinton fatigue will set in. For many voters, even some Democrats, it already has. Clinton’s best strategy between today and 2016 would be to vanish from the political scene. While she’s disappearing, Clinton should take Bill and daughter Chelsea with her. They’re overexposed, too.

Second, while she’ll continue her effort to distance herself from Obama, Clinton’s Republican and Democratic opponents can easily link the two. Clinton’s problem will be compounded, because in the waning days of his lame duck presidency, Obama will be extremely unpopular and viewed as an extremist. In a nation disgusted with politics in general, Clinton’s well-established and ongoing endorsements of Obama’s agenda will bog her down.

Third — and Clinton’s biggest challenge — is history. Emory University political science professor Alan Abramowitz built a forecasting model based on what he calls the “Time for Change” sentiment against the in-party. Among his findings, Abramowitz theorized that growing partisan polarization creates a decreased advantage for the incumbent party’s candidates even though election fundamentals may indicate otherwise.

Abramowitz speculates that even if Obama’s job approval rating is high (it won’t be) and the economy is strong (no chance) when he leaves office, Clinton, his potential Democratic successor, would face a substantial electoral headwind.

Another political scientist, State University of New York, Stony Brook’s Helmut Norpoth, explored the autoregressive tendency in presidential elections. Norpoth says that elections are related to one another and are not independent like coin tosses. The competitive nature of elections, argues Norpoth, guarantees that the initial popular support for the incumbent party always gravitates back to a 50-50 probability for either candidate. While the timing may be uncertain, Norpoth predicts that “a reversal of electoral fortunes” will happen.

America needs to rid itself of political family dynasties that perpetuate bad policy-making: the Browns, the Bushes, the Cuomos, the Daleys and the Kennedys. When George W. Bush reached his term limit in 2008, he and his father had occupied the first or second most powerful positions in the U.S. government for 20 out of the previous 28 years.

Enough is enough!

Joe Guzzardi retired from the Lodi Adult School in 2008. He’s a former Republican and former Democrat who is currently registered as an Independent.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

4 comments:

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:18 am on Tue, Oct 1, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Millions of Democrats will be fooled once again, as they are invariably. Democrats are especially gullible and politically naïve, followed by mindless Fox News watching Republicans.Both repeatedly prove Einstein right – insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 10:34 am on Mon, Sep 30, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1535

    Joe’s delusions are getting worse. I’m sure he would like to think that we are tired of the Clintons but the liberals I talk to are just itching to give Hillary the nomination sorry Joe but your column is just wishful thinking.

     
  • John Kindseth posted at 7:42 pm on Sun, Sep 29, 2013.

    John Kindseth Posts: 243

    Joe, in addition to all those you mentioned that are over exposed: the bushes, the clinthongs, the Obamas, the Hildebeast, etc, do not forget the most pitiful: Jerry Brown. The man who has singlehandedly brought California cities to their knees.

     
  • Ted Lauchland posted at 1:28 pm on Sat, Sep 28, 2013.

    Ted Lauchland Posts: 258

    So long as it continues to take money to be seen in this country I can not say that vying for Presidency is going to change much. I can't say I would want a homeless individual as President either. Finding a balance always will come with it's own baggage. Obama in particular came with a boatload. The Bushes did too. Thus the importance of both Houses and the separate states and counties and cities and families and individuals. None of it should be more powerful than the others. Cooperation between them means Obama is no better than I nor should he be regarded as such. He is not indispensable as so am I.

    The Clintons as being overly visible? - Could be. Palin was accused of just the opposite. How about Guzzardi for El Presidente ?

    Money will always seem like it is more powerful only in that it can do more things than no money. It can be a source for good or a source for bad. So are you suggesting that all political campaigns be restricted to only public moneys by law and not allow influences of any other type? - It won't happen in this free country. -No threat strong enough could exist to keep it in line.

    Watching the patterns over the years ,generally speaking, bounce between the Democrat leaderships and the Republican leaderships proves that a balance is forever being sought. However, the average person does not live forever and that political mix is ever changing just in a new crop of voters every year. Influences that also change. The only thing that is constant is the original plan for this country.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 8 hours ago by Josh Morgan.

article: Letter: Why was Wine & Roses paid?

This complaint is absolutely ridiculous. Mr. Munson has complied to the letter of the law regarding disclosure and now he is being critici…

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Steve Hansen: Climate change is real, b…

Seems the way it went down in my book Steve

More...

Posted 9 hours ago by Rick Houdack.

article: Letter: Why was Wine & Roses paid?

If you are this upset Russ Munson spent 1/8 of his money paying for fundraisers at Wine and Roses, how upset would you be if he spent 2/3 o…

More...

Posted 17 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Steve Hansen: Climate change is real, b…

And Joe See Snopes on John Colemans climate change denial http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/coleman.asp

More...

Posted 18 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: Immigration crisis is linked to…

I really considered Teds post here a heart to heart talk from a likeable uncle but my head can't make heads or tails out of what was being …

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists