Accuracy in Media

Protests to the contrary notwithstanding, Hillary Clinton is still interested in being a presidential candidate in 2020.

Further evidence of this emerged this week with a Washington Post piece headlined, “Hillary 2020? Trump better hope not.”

It then goes on to outline why Clinton “would be well-positioned to win in a rematch.”

In response to an Oct. 16 tweet in which Trump said he’d been asked whether “Crooked Hillary Clinton is going to run in 2020 …” and said, “I hope so!” Michael Brenes, a historian and senior archivist at Yale University, said not so fast.

“Putting aside the reckless braggadocio – and blatant sexism – inherent in such a statement, the entire scenario seems absurd,” Brenes wrote. He did not explain what was blatantly sexist about Trump predicting he would win a rematch.

Few expect Clinton to run, he said, and most doubt she could win the Democratic nomination if she did. Clinton herself has said she has no plans to run.

“Trump should be careful what he wishes for,” Brenes wrote. “Clinton might not be a potential candidate now, but the political winds can change quickly. Recent American history is rife with presidential contenders who lost the primary or general election and then went on to become a candidate in subsequent elections.”

Yes, many losing candidates do try their luck later in other elections. But at the presidential level, losing becomes its own impediment. People don’t want to back a candidate who has run and lost before, as Mitt Romney found out abruptly from the colder-than-ice reception he received when he floated the idea of jumping into the 2016 race.

Clinton lost twice when heavily favored against political novices when her supposed advantage – in-depth knowledge of policy in a variety of areas – ended up helping little. There is evidence her campaign and the Democratic National Committee colluded to shut out Bernie Sanders.

Not only that, she lost in both cases because she ran badly managed campaigns that misallocated resources, could not settle a consistent message and were not able to portray Clinton in the best light. A scandal that was not present even on Election Day emerged that likely would weaken whatever enthusiasm there might be for her campaign.

Brenes said all this can be overcome because of Trump’s “abysmally low approval ratings and inability to deliver on signature campaign promises (building a border wall, ending NAFTA and repealing the Affordable Care Act, to name a few), and Clinton could once more emerge as a serious challenger.”

Meanwhile, samples of what the wall might look like are up now near San Diego along the Mexican border. NAFTA is being renegotiated, and Trump, with his recent executive orders, has, for all intents and purposes, repealed Obamacare anyway.

Brenes’ point is that Clinton still “retains significant support within her party, and Democrats currently have no clear front-runner to replace her.” No one questions the Clintons could raise significant money for such a run, and Brenes claims she would have a “vibrant, large, motivated base of supporters angry at Trump, Russian interference in the election and former FBI director James Comey – in their minds, the collective robbers of Clinton’s presidency.”

Trump could find himself in trouble in 2020 if an unpopular war breaks out or the economy falters, and voters “come to believe they made a mistake and look to Clinton to rectify the wrong,” Brenes said.

But “like Nixon and Reagan, Clinton can win the presidency in 2020 thanks to a combination of demographic and electoral shifts among voters and uncertainty about their futures.”

This is an example of a go-against-the-grain story designed to provoke thought. The writer is given some leeway to get the discussion flowing. But when you have someone declaring she would have a “vibrant, large, motivated base of supporters” doubly angry at Trump, you’re substituting wishful thinking for clear and hope for reality.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • Ladislav Din

    Heaven help us. The last thing this nation needs is for the Democrats to repeat their least appealing, most dishonest and untrustworthy presidential nominee in history. Because she has HORRENDOUSLY bad judgment, she could not lead a successful strategic presidential campaign twice. Can we really risk three strikes to say she’s OUT!

  • Alberta Ed

    The WaPo must be drinking its own bathwater again.

  • RogerDman

    Holy shit you must be smoking crack

  • Lee

    After her reaction to the lose in 2016. She would probably have trouble being elected to any office!

  • mioahu


  • Mike S.

    The Washington Pravda is Hillarious! Looks like I’ll have to cancel another Amazon order.

  • suzukimom

    Banking on Trump being beatable as the pied piper candidate has already proven to be a losing strategy. Hillary lost! Bernie would have won.

  • Antel Lopez

    There is no fkin way. Hahahah. All the Trump supporters are behind Hilary’s reelection camp tho.

  • Richard Schmidt

    By 2020 HRC will only qualify to run for President if she sues under tha American’s with Disabilities Act on the basis that remembering her own name demonstrates competence.

  • dogity dog

    WaPo is assuming that the Oval Office can be converted to a prison cell and that America will not object to having a career criminal as President.
    Another story being reported under the ‘Comedy News’ heading:
    “WaPo believes that they are a legitimate news organization that only reports factual and unbiased articles that have no political agendas attached to them”.
    WAPO What A Piece Of…………………… (fill in the blank)

  • Rooster

    Her supporters watched a totally unlikeable.inept person piss away $ 1.2 billion to lose a sure
    thing election against an amateur. I know the Dems are leemings when it comes to the Clinton’s
    but come on . By the way , the amateur politician spent about $ 600 million .

  • mioahu



    Please, please, please run the bribe-taking baby-killing bulldyke again, party of satanism, socialism and sodomy.

  • samo war
  • L.L. Smith

    Unless the law has been changes a convicted felon cannot run for the presidency. She would look really sharp campaigning in a striped pants suit.

    I can see it now, “What Happened #2”.

  • Paul W

    Brenes is a moron. What is sexist about I hope so? Let alone more criminal pay to play stuff coming out.

  • worried for future

    Your last statement clearly demonstrates the difference in sensible handling of money resources between a Washington political hack and a businessman. One can only imagine just what would happen to our national debt alone if such a hack were to be in charge.

  • Austinniceguy

    I SINCERELY hope she runs again, it’ll be a very happy moment when we all get to watch her finally collapse for the last time. I never laughed as hard as I did while watching her handlers drag her across the asphalt after the old burnout almost croaked at the 9/11 memorial last year.

  • Austinniceguy

    More like; “Oh Boy, It Happened Again”

  • Christian Washington

    Blatant sexism? Because Trump said, “I hope so.” about HRC running? Where is the sexism? Where did he refer to her sex / gender? If you don’t respect an individual who happens to be a woman you aren’t sexist.

    However, if you believe that anytime a man criticizes a woman that the man is sexist – you are stupid.

  • Jackanory Biggins

    Trump is no amateur but America is wiser now. They know Hillary has faults. She may bend the rules but she isn’t crooked. Accused of so much, yet her opponents’ followers don’t compare her with their own side. She fights for all those positive things that the Republicans don’t. Hillary has more experience in campaigns with Trump and is more prepared to win against Trump than any other democratic candidate popular or otherwise. Let’s not forget that America voted for Hillary and treated it’s first major female presidential candidate disgustingly. That’s not a legacy even Hillary should allow to be the case. Hillary 2020!

  • Jackanory Biggins

    No doubt there will be an obnoxious snotty reply below from a right wing supporter/troll with blatant nonsense about her.

  • Gz7


  • dogity dog

    If she were in charge the national debt would not be my biggest concern. After she finished destroying whats left the debt would be irrelevant.

  • ventolin63

    well, a lot of people predicted a Hillary victory in 2016, including WaPO. I guess some people never learn.Still it’s good news because, as it stands now, whomever goes against Trump in 2020 will feel Trump’s bern so hard up their toosh that they’ll quit in the primaries. When it comes to predictions WaPo should change it’s acronym to…WaCKo!

  • Desertphile

    Well gosh; she won in 2016, so perhaps she can also win in 2020. I refuse to vote for any and all Clintons for the same reason I refuse to vote for any and all conservatives, not just them.

  • Desertphile

    “a lot of people predicted a Hillary victory in 2016”

    And they were right. I refused to vote for her because she only wanted conservatives to vote for her.

  • ventolin63

    …and look haw that turned oit, Desertphile! I would have never belived it before but that ages-old maxima stating that “Liberals fall in lobe, Republicans fall in line” it’s actually true.

  • ventolin63

    Please, let the woman run! We need our comedy show every 4 years, and what can be better than having Hillary vs. Trump? I can wait to see her squashing her brains on the glass ceiling for a third time, only that makes life worth living! Everybody on her side and she still…pulls a Hillary in the end, it’s priceless 🙂

  • Tracy

    ROFLMAO…Seriously????? hahahahahahaha. You can’t be serious! How dumb is this woman, and how dumb is anyone that would be behind her to run again. OMG!!! This is the definition of crazy. Give it up Hilary! Please give it up!!!