Newt: Let’s face it, Hillary’s going to be awfully tough to beat in 2016

posted at 5:01 pm on December 10, 2012 by Allahpundit

He doesn’t say it’s impossible, mind you. Just next to impossible. Dude, I’m nervous:

“First of all, she’s very formidable as a person,” he said. “She’s a very competent person. She’s married to the most popular Democrat in the country; they both think [it] would be good for her to be president. It makes it virtually impossible to stop her for the nomination.”

In addition to having Bill Clinton’s support, Hillary Clinton would also have the backing of President Barack Obama, who will still be a “relatively popular president,” Gingrich added. “Trying to win that will be truly the Super Bowl.”

Is it “virtually” impossible to stop her in the primaries or is it impossible? Democrats need to overcome eight years of big-government fatigue and win a third straight presidential election. Their bench is far thinner than the GOP’s, except for an internationally famous, extremely popular former first lady turned senator turned Secretary of State who’s angling to make history as the first woman president. What Democratic voter in his or her right mind is going to roll the dice on Cuomo or Martin O’Malley or whoever when they could take their chances with Hillary! and the Clinton machine instead?

Here’s the real question. What does the near-inevitability of Hillary’s nomination mean for the GOP primaries in 2016? I think Republican voters will feel tremendous pressure to nominate someone with enough star power of their own that they won’t be completely overshadowed by her in the general. That’s good news for Rubio and Chris Christie, not such good news for Jindal and Rand Paul. Rubio would also benefit insofar as he and Jindal would likely be the only Republicans with a “historic candidacy” narrative capable of somewhat neutralizing Hillary’s. The wild card is Jeb Bush, insofar as he’s the only prospective nominee — at least right now — whose “brand” is as well known as the Clintons’. Is that a good thing in his case, though? Asking voters whether they want to revisit the Clinton era or the Bush era seems, shall we say, not so smart; besides, if you nominate Jeb, you forfeit the talking point that the other side’s candidate is old news, a stale dynastic offering at a moment when a new, more diverse America is being born. Exit question: Would Rubio want to challenge Hillary?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Hillary vs. Haley? That would neutralize any “history-maker” advantage. And Nikki would have THREE on her: first woman, first Indian-American, first Gen X-er in the White House.

TMOverbeck on December 11, 2012 at 8:58 AM

A recent poll has Shillary earning 90% of Democommie support for 2016. As mentioned earlier, she is owed the nomination.
She will not pass up the opportunity to become the First Woman President of the USSA.

Newt is no savant on this. It’s common sense. And if you think the war on women is over, just wait.

Presidential politics is ONLY about popularity now and whom the media accepts, and Hillary is the their heir apparent. And the best part is the Reps lose anyway to her, but get destroyed if the run a MAN as a nominee.
The Reps will need to run a woman against Shillary. That’s just the way it is Chance.

FlaMurph on December 11, 2012 at 8:02 AM

But hear me, can Hillary get Pookie up off the couch like 0bama could? She’s melanin-challenged, y’all. Of course, most active Democrats support her. Most active Republicans in 2008 were supportive of a Mitt Romney 2012 run. Shaniqua, Pookie, Maria, and Juan aren’t active Democrats, even though when they bother to vote they vote Democrat. The trick 0bama perfected was getting the above to the polls solely by virtue of not being white, like Hillary IS white.

Newt is trying to make her the Mitt Romney of 2016-unstoppable in the primary, unelectable (let’s face it) in the general. Play along, y’all.

Sekhmet on December 11, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Well??? Maybe Newt just wants to ‘head off at the pass’ those who would be open to a 3rd Obama term???
Anyway, Newt made news again – book sales – more shows.

darlus on December 11, 2012 at 9:54 AM

We need a TRUE Conservative to lead the party.

PALIN 2016

ChuckTX on December 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Newt’s right.

I saw a car a few weeks ago with “It takes more than 4 years to undo what Busch (yes, spelled that way) did.” These people will simply change the number “4″ to “8″.

MT on December 11, 2012 at 10:14 AM

By 2016 Hillary will weigh 300 pounds and be on a strictly vodka diet. No solid foods.

steebo77 on December 11, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Callista 2016!!!

steebo77 on December 11, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The Reps will need to run a woman against Shillary. That’s just the way it is Chance.

FlaMurph on December 11, 2012 at 8:02 AM

Republican women are not really women, the same way republican blacks are not really black.

MT on December 11, 2012 at 10:19 AM

We need a TRUE Conservative to lead the party.

PALIN 2016

ChuckTX on December 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM

You’d have to run her 3rd-party, and it’s too late for that.

MelonCollie on December 11, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Well??? Maybe Newt just wants to ‘head off at the pass’ those who would be open to a 3rd Obama term???

darlus on December 11, 2012 at 9:54 AM

The US has changed dramatically in the time that I’ve been here, but it hasn’t changed so much to get enough of the states from Flyover America to go along with the blue Coasties in repealing the 22nd Amendment and I don’t even think OH and WI would go along with NY & CA.

…at least, not before 2016.

Resist We Much on December 11, 2012 at 11:04 AM

All this talk of history and past elections in meaningless…Hillary will destroy the Democratic field in 2016.

thurman on December 11, 2012 at 7:24 AM

My essential point was, remains and will continue to remain true. 4 years is an eternity in politics.

Of course, there are those that have crystal balls and will tell you for certain what will be the lay of the land in 4 years and who the generals on the battlefield will be, but who knows? No one and those that claim they do are either liars or delusional.

Have you seen Drudge this morning?

Granted, it is just a “stomach virus,” but Hillary has cancelled her entire trip to the Middle East.

Three years from now, Hill or Bill could be dead. The dollar could have collapsed. Obama could have driven us completely into a complete economic collapse worse than anything ever seen in this country. A Democratic administration could have opened fire on American citizens (think something akin to the Bonus March). We could be in the midst of fighting a hot WWIII.

Resist We Much on December 11, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Newt,
hotair.com owners,

On being part of the solution.

Rather than be all about yourself.

Get behind those who fight and find a way not enable the go along.

Help Mark Steyn and NRO fight the “fraud” CO2 con michael mann’s law suit. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335221/we-need-your-help-jack-fowler#

“Newt” your big money guy from Las Vegas needs a call from you on these things.

real fighting going on by the posters and Mr. Watt of
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

He could use a little help too.

If we help one another, should be a good thing, United We Stand and all that.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Well said.

Newt should know better.

As for Hot Air…..well, that’s a whole different story.

Tim_CA on December 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Hillary looks pretty worn out if you ask me. I don’t think four years of carrying Obama’s water has served her well.

Everyone says she’s been such a great SoS. Other than travel a lot, what has she accomplished? We’re losing the middle east to radical Islam, and have scared Israel to death. Our European allies don’t trust us anymore.

My real question though is – what is Newt up to in saying this?

TarheelBen on December 11, 2012 at 7:02 AM

That, and getting our ambassador killed along with three other Americans. In a sane world, botching the “3 am phone call” would’ve meant the end. But then again, “sane” people wouldn’t have reelected Barack Obama. Either American voters have gone mad or our elections are rigged. We’re living with the results of decades of unchecked socialism. So, yeah… I’d say that despite the preponderance of reasons why Hillary should be disqualified, she could very well prevail.

Murf76 on December 11, 2012 at 11:50 AM

If Barack can be reelected after Benghazi, then Hillary should have no problem.

unclesmrgol on December 11, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Dude, I’m nervous:

I’m going to guess, Allah, that the reason you’re so nervous about Hillary is that you think the reason we lost the last election is because we ran a bad candidate and that Mitt made a lot of mistakes, he wasn’t likable, etc.

I know that’s how Ed feels.

If you believe that’s the reason we lost, you might have had hopes that next time we ran, we might have had more success with someone somehow “better.” So now that it’s confirmed that Hillary is so strong and there is no conceivable Republican candidate her equal, these hopes have been dashed, and that’s why you’re suddenly nervous.

Personally, I’m not more nervous than I was already, and here is why:

First, I don’t think the reason we lost is that Mitt was this supposedly bad candidate who made a lot of mistakes. I think the reason we lost is that demographics have shifted and the culture has changed. We are now either a center-left or just a leftist country. I believe that Democrats could run a Walter Mondale or McGovern in 2016 against a Reagan or even George Washington himself and we would still lose.

Related to this point, I have no wild hope that if our country goes into a tailspin, that if “it burns,” that this fact will in some indirect way help conservatives. It didn’t hurt FDR for the country to be flaming during the thirties, and it won’t hurt the Democrats now.

Finally, I already knew that Hillary was a strong frontrunner weeks ago, so hearing Newt say it is nothing new.

As far as I can tell, conservatives don’t have any good arguments anymore–at least any that will appeal to a majority. The argument that some of the stupider talk radio hosts (like Sean Hannity) are urging Boehner to use now, that we need to hold the line on taxes “because that’s what our party does”–is, it seems to me, pathetically flawed and unconvincing. If that’s all they can muster, as I think is true, there is absolutely no hope for Republicans’ future.

Having Newt say that Hillary will be hard to beat is just a microscopic blip on a far larger canvass.

Burke on December 11, 2012 at 12:31 PM

The Hillary Panic.

It’s funny. Stay obsessed with the Clintons. Stay in the past.

The Dem nom for 2016 is Tammy Baldwin’s, in a lock if she wants it. Female, lesbian, a rock star and a half for the liberal media.

Moesart on December 11, 2012 at 12:55 PM

And why is a multi-failure like Newt Gingrich held up as some kind of standard anyway?

That’s how bad it is for Republicans right now.

Moesart on December 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

But will she be fundamentally tough to beat?

Tzetzes on December 11, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Hillary? Please. That woman’s got more baggage than anyone.

I hope they do give her the nomination. Add Benghazi to all her other failures, scandals, and sleaze. Wrap it all up in a big bow, and we should be able to smear every other Democrat running for office with Hillary’s lying and sleazy ways.

tom on December 11, 2012 at 5:34 PM

We need a TRUE Conservative to lead the party.

PALIN 2016

ChuckTX on December 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM

You’d have to run her 3rd-party, and it’s too late for that.

MelonCollie on December 11, 2012 at 10:47 AM

She wouldn’t have to run 3rd party at all. Just as in 2012, the 2016 GOP nomination’s hers if she wants it. It’s just a question of whether she wants it or not.

ddrintn on December 11, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Just as in 2012, the 2016 GOP nomination’s hers [Palin's] if she wants it. It’s just a question of whether she wants it or not.

ddrintn on December 11, 2012 at 7:08 PM

*snicker* *snicker*

Sorry, but Sarah Palin would have made Rick Perry and Herman Cain look like brilliant minds and masterful political candidates. Her implosion wouldn’t have taken as long as theirs. The cold, hard fact is that most voters (including many conservatives!) rightly don’t even think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president. We can like her and agree with her on many issues, but agree that we should be able to aim higher when it comes to selecting a nominee. She is far from our brightest conservative light.

Maybe what it’s going to take for obsessed Sarah Palin groupies like ddrintn, who attack any Republican not named Palin and who never got over the fact that Palin chose not to run because she knew she couldn’t cut it, is for Sarah Palin to run next time and fall flat on her face. Maybe that will end the silly “only Sarah Palin can save us all” baloney we see spewed on here regularly from some of her more ardent worshipers. Of course, these people will probably blame anyone and everything but Palin for Palin’s inevitable failure. She isn’t known as St. Palin the Victimized for nothing.

bluegill on December 11, 2012 at 8:19 PM

*snicker* *snicker*

Sorry, but Sarah Palin would have made Rick Perry and Herman Cain look like brilliant minds and masterful political candidates.

bluegill on December 11, 2012 at 8:19 PM

She would’ve beaten Romney like a rented mule. Worse than Obama did. *snicker, snicker*

ddrintn on December 11, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Maybe what it’s going to take for obsessed Sarah Palin groupies like ddrintn, who attack any Republican not named Palin …

bluegill on December 11, 2012 at 8:19 PM

By the way, hm. When have I ever attacked, oh, Scott Walker?

ddrintn on December 11, 2012 at 9:08 PM

She would’ve beaten Romney

ddrintn on December 11, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Are you talking about the same Sarah Palin who received LESS votes than Romney? The same Sarah Palin who is incapable of appearing in challenging tv interviews? The same Sarah Palin who gets stumped when asked what she reads or to name a single Founding Father? The same Sarah Palin who quits her job when the going gets tough, and who the majority of the county doesn’t even think is remotely qualified to be president?

By the way, hm. When have I ever attacked, oh, Scott Walker?

ddrintn on December 11, 2012 at 9:08 PM

There is hope for you yet! I am thrilled that you have found a Republican not named Palin who you don’t want to attack. Baby steps. I will cure you of your Sarah Palin fanaticism yet.

One day you will say to me, “bluegill, you were right all along.” And I won’t gloat and I won’t say, “I told you so.” I will feel proud of you and happy to see you emerge from the darkness and into the light.

bluegill on December 11, 2012 at 9:18 PM

She would’ve beaten Romney

ddrintn on December 11, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Are you talking about the same Sarah Palin who received LESS votes than Romney?

bluegill on December 11, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Yeah, the one who ran on the ticket that was going up against the unknown Lightworker Chicago Jesus, while your super-electable boy Mitt got, what, 60,000 votes more while going up against the worst president in US history. Yeah, that one.

ddrintn on December 11, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Are you talking about the same Sarah Palin who received LESS votes than Romney?

I was unaware that Sarah Palin was ever at the top of a presidential ticket. Why didn’t anyone tell me?

/apples and oranges

NoLeftTurn on December 11, 2012 at 10:36 PM

First, it’s too early to be talking about 2016. Let’s get through the Mayan apocalypse first.

Second, it’s to late to be listening to Newt about anything. Newt, get a job!

virgo on December 12, 2012 at 1:03 AM

She is far from our brightest conservative light.

Maybe what it’s going to take for obsessed Sarah Palin groupies like ddrintn, who attack any Republican not named Palin and who never got over the fact that Palin chose not to run because she knew she couldn’t cut it, is for Sarah Palin to run next time and fall flat on her face. Maybe that will end the silly “only Sarah Palin can save us all” baloney we see spewed on here regularly from some of her more ardent worshipers. Of course, these people will probably blame anyone and everything but Palin for Palin’s inevitable failure. She isn’t known as St. Palin the Victimized for nothing.

bluegill on December 11, 2012 at 8:19 PM

.
Your logic is correct on most levels. Palin knew she was the most hated woman in America, knew what was at stake, and was smart enough to stay on the sidelines for 2012 once Romney was the Candidate. And Sarah was much of the fuel for the Nov 2010- which the media has made sure she would not be credited with. Sure she also had her losses.
But why Hold Palin to a higher standard than a Moron like Biden or a Liar like Ocommie?
If the socialists run Hillary in 2016, a Woman Republican is the only chance Rs will have against her, and realistically ?……

FlaMurph on December 12, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Your logic is correct on most levels. Palin knew she was the most hated woman in America…

FlaMurph on December 12, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Oh, I dunno. Here’s Gallup’s list of “most admired women” from 2010:

1) Hillary Clinton – 17 percent votes
2) Sarah Palin – 12 percent votes
3) Oprah Winfrey – 11 percent votes
4) Michelle Obama – 5 percent votes
5) Condoleezza Rice – 2 percent votes
6) Queen Elizabeth – 2 percent votes
7) Angelina Jolie – 1 percent votes
8) Margaret Thatcher – 1 percent votes
9) Aung San Suu Kyi – 1 percent votes
9) Laura Bush – 1 percent votes
9) Barbara Bush – 1 percent votes

So, what happened? Maybe a steady dose of “Mitt’s the only one with a realistic shot”?

ddrintn on December 12, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Well in 2016, if we still have a country left. And if a face lift (if they can lift it that high) a tummy tuck and a gallon of Botox does not work for Hillary, she can always run on her record as Secretary of State. Of course that record would have to be edited, polished so bright that nobody could look at it, and flat out lied about, she could win in a society dominated by idiots. But in the real world we do not need anymore of these hate America type presidents. I like Newt, but he usually becomes part of the problem instead of a solution with this establishment Republican Party we suffer with today.

savage24 on December 12, 2012 at 1:58 PM

If Americans will elect Obama for a second term after all he has done to ruin the country, they will also elect Hillary. And, Hillary worked for Saul Alinsky and is more Socialist than Obama.

The same base that elected Obama, will be Hillary’s base. Hillary and Bill are very politically connected and have their campaign network available. In comparison, the GOP is in tatters.

Unless Republicans start making Hillary a political target now, and start undermining her credibility as a Presidential candidate, she WILL take 2016.

Sparky5253 on December 12, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Unless Republicans start making Hillary a political target now, and start undermining her credibility as a Presidential candidate, she WILL take 2016.

Sparky5253 on December 12, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Oh, please. That would never work. All that amounts to is yet another round of “vote against so-and-so”. The only way the Republicans would win against Clinton for anyone else is to provide an alternative, someone that people (especially the so-called GOP base) will vote FOR.

ddrintn on December 12, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Who can beat Hillary? Patrick Moran.

(Apologies if this joke is already played out).

NealK on December 13, 2012 at 12:05 AM

It would also help not to have a crappy incompetent candidate who basically agrees with everything the Democrats want.

sharrukin on December 10, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Nah, that wasn’t Mitt’s fault. It was the filthy TruCon purist pharisees that killed his chances, not the fact that he was a northeastern leftist Democrat in Republican clothing.

/Old County Boy

Dunedainn on December 13, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Why doesn’t that fat f**k just shut up and go away. He bloodied Romney so badly, all the Dems had to do was finish the job (think Bain).

RonRon on December 23, 2012 at 6:42 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3