Hillary Clinton lost out on the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination race to Barack Obama. In 2016 she was the nominee, and lost the race to President Donald Trump.
Now, despite a multitude of discussions that she’s trying to become the Democrats’ nominee in 2024, a poll shows voters would have the same – very negative – response.
Paul Bedard wrote about the results in his Washington Examiner column.
“With nearly daily tweets, book talks, and her MasterClass appearance, Clinton has been reminding voters that she is ready to step in and run in 2024 if President Joe Biden bows out. She has drawn so much attention to herself that the pundit class has started to talk up another Clinton run, especially if former President Donald Trump dives in as expected,” he explained.
In fact, Democratic political advisers Doug Schoen and Andrew Stein claimed that, “If Democrats want a fighting chance at winning the presidency in 2024, Mrs. Clinton is likely their best option.”
But Bedard’s conclusion? “Well, no.”
He cited details from McLaughlin & Associates that said Clinton is “no more popular than Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and far less popular than Vice President Kamala Harris and former first lady Michelle Obama in a potential primary.”
The poll shows voters would pick Trump over Clinton 51%-41%. He would beat Kamala Harris 51%-40%.
Bedard explained, of Clinton, “She should forget a direct challenge to Biden, who has said he plans to run for reelection with Harris as his No. 2. That’s because the survey found that she would receive just 7% of the Democratic primary vote if Biden runs.”
He explained pollster John McLaughlin confirmed Clinton is having trouble winning support from groups that backed her 2016 bid and who are key to beating any Republican in a general election.
“The new hope of a revived Hillary Clinton gets beaten by Trump, 51%-41%, with Trump beating her among independents, 52%-37%, among suburban voters, 52%-39%, and taking 19% among liberals, 13% among Democrats, and 10% of Biden 2020 voters,” McLaughlin said.
The results also reveal “that Trump is not only in charge of the GOP but the pick of Republican voters to run in 2024. It found that 70% of Republican voters want him to run again and that if he does, 81% of Republicans would vote for him. In a Trump-Biden head-to-head race, Trump would win 49%-44%.”
WND reported when Schoen and Stein promoted Clinton’s 2024 options.
Their promotion followed Clinton’s own series of television appearances and interviews in which she took swipes at Biden.
Of course, she’s been first lady, a U.S. senator and secretary of state. She’s also known for her 2016 campaign that created – apparently using Russian disinformation – the now-debunked claims of President Donald Trump’s campaign “collusion” with Russia. She reportedly created the storyline to distract voters from her own email scandal, where she put classified government secrets on an unsecured email system.
The Daily Mail report explained, “It’s typically unusual for political operatives to start seeking potential candidates for the next election, especially so far out of the administration, when a member of their own party controls the White House already. It is also rare for an incumbent president to face a serious primary challenge.
“But if Biden clinched another term in the White House he would be 81 years old when he was sworn in, a record for the oldest person to take office. Doubts over his fitness for office at an advanced age coupled with approval ratings that have been in the low 40s since October have served to dim his chances.”
Joe Concha wrote in a column at The Hill that, “Hillary Clinton always seemed to believe the mantle of ‘First Female President’ was her birthright. And given how pathetic the field is on the Democratic side with or without Joe Biden, she may just get a second chance at winning the office her husband so famously made infamous.”
And at the time, columnist Robert Spencer at PJMedia noted that she suddenly has been making appearances, including a recent reading of her “victory” speech from the 2016 race which went unused when she lost to Trump.
Spencer explained, “Considering the fact that Hillary is one of the most artificial and calculating human beings on the planet, the question must be asked: Why now? Hillary has had over four years to release this speech, of which she is clearly proud. What is different about the situation today that led her to inflict this speech on an unwitting world?”
Spencer wrote, “By the time the 2024 election rolls around, Hillary will be 77, but Joe Biden, if he is still with us as much as he is now, will be nearly 82, and Kamala Harris will still be as obviously unfit to be president of the United States as she is now, even if by then she has served some time (heaven help us) in the Oval Office. The Democrat bench, as Stacey Lennox recently detailed, is even weaker. So why not Hillary? After all, she maintains that she won the election in 2016 in the first place; she clearly believes that she can defeat Trump (if he is indeed the Republican nominee, and again, in her view) in 2024.”
A columnist from the New York Post has said in an interview with Fox News that Clinton is begging to be the one.
Miranda Devine explained, “I think it tells you more about the state of the Democratic Party than it does about poor America, that they are even considering Hillary Clinton, that she isn’t just being laughed out of school for popping her head up above the parapet, from so desperately and so obviously having her hand up and saying ‘pick me, take me!’
“The master class, so-called, that she gave the other day that people pay $20 a month to watch, in which she read her undelivered victory speech and then cried at the end of it with no real tears, that was her begging the American people and begging the Democratic Party to look at her as the alternative to Joe Biden, because after all, she is younger than him.”
Possibly throwing a wrench in that agenda is a Washington Examiner report that special counsel John Durham told a federal court he is looking at members of Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign as part of his criminal inquiry into the origins and conduct of the Trump-Russia investigation.
“Durham’s team asked a judge to ‘inquire into a potential conflict of interest’ related to the lawyers for British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s main anti-Trump dossier source, noting that a separate lawyer at their firm ‘is currently representing the 2016 ‘Hillary for America’ presidential campaign,’ as well as multiple former employees of that campaign, in matters before the Special Counsel,” the report said.
Already, Igor Danchenko, a Russian-born researcher, was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI. Durham’s indictment charged he made those statements about the information he provided to Steele for his debunked dossier.
The FBI used those false statements when pursuing authority for the secret surveillance of a one-time Trump campaign aide.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.