Matt Latimer: “No inside information informs this prediction. No argument is advanced as to whether her run is a good or a bad idea—there are many ways to make a case either way. Instead this is just a statement of simple facts (if facts mean anything anymore, that is). And the facts are clear that the former secretary of state is doing everything she needs to do to run for the White House one more time. If she finds a path to do so, she will take it. And I can prove it.”

“Yes, barring some calamity, Clinton is running. And this brave columnist will go one step further. Not only will Clinton will run again, she has an excellent shot at getting the Democratic Party nomination again. But only if she approaches it quite differently.”

A new Economist/YouGov survey finds that nearly half of all Donald Trump voters believe a widely debunked conspiracy theory claiming that Hillary Clinton is involved in a child sex ring run out of a popular Washington, D.C. pizzeria.

A new USA Today/Suffolk poll finds that 62% of Democrats and independents surveyed said Hillary Clinton shouldn’t mount another presidential campaign in 2020, and only 23% would be excited if she did.

Rick Klein: “Let’s agree to put a pause on all such talk until at least the inauguration. But how else to explain her campaign operation’s decision – five weeks after a decisive Electoral College loss – to encourage electors be allowed to get classified intelligence briefings on the extent of Russian interference? Reverence for Alexander Hamilton notwithstanding, the Clinton team knows that exerting independent judgment is not what the Electoral College does. Those involved also know there’s no mechanism for gathering 538 individuals scattered across 51 jurisdictions into an intelligence briefing, much less getting them the required security clearances before they cast their votes next week.”

“John Podesta’s statement in support of a briefing for electors marks the most aggressive attempt by Clinton aides to call the election’s results into question. It carries far more weight than support for recounts, in the statement’s implications. As for the politics, why have the Clinton operation on record in this way unless Hillary Clinton herself wants to be in the political mix moving forward? And in the short term, is anyone happier that this story is morphed into a political one than Donald Trump, who prefers these grapes taste sour?”

Washington Post: “Hillary Clinton’s first major political event since her defeat last month will be a thank-you party for those really, really big donors — the people who brought in many hundreds of thousands of dollars for her unsuccessful Democratic presidential bid — Democrats familiar with the lavish event said Wednesday.”

“Invitations to the party went out last week, and the remaining staff of the Clinton campaign has been fielding complaints ever since from donors who were not included. Some donors were told that the size of the party was dictated by the space constraints of the ballroom, people familiar with the event said.”

Huffington Post: “For months, the Clinton campaign had banked on a wide army of volunteer organizers to help corral independents and Democratic leaners and re-energize a base not particularly enthused about the election. But they were volunteers. And as anecdotal data came back to offices in key battlegrounds, concern mounted that leadership had skimped on a critical campaign function.”

“Several theories have been proffered to explain just what went wrong for the Clinton campaign in an election that virtually everyone expected the Democratic nominee to win. But lost in the discussion is a simple explanation, one that was re-emphasized to HuffPost in interviews with several high-ranking officials and state-based organizers: The Clinton campaign was harmed by its own neglect.”

Said one senior state operative: “It was arrogance, arrogance that they were going to win. That this was all wrapped up.”

Amy Walter: “The media has paid a lot of attention throughout the campaign and afterward on rural and working-class white America. Not nearly as much attention has been spent on suburban America, whose college-educated white voters (especially white women) were supposed to provide Hillary Clinton a bulwark to big losses among the white working class. Instead, these voters abandoned Clinton too. Mitt Romney carried the suburbs by 2 points — Trump carried them by 5 points.”

“The theory held by the Clinton campaign was that Clinton would make up for losses in rural, white America with gains in suburban America among white voters who were turned off by Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric, lack of presidential timbre and temperament and sexist behavior brought to light by the Access Hollywood tape.”

“Yet, in looking at the results of highly-educated suburban counties, it’s clear that those voters didn’t turn out for Clinton with the fervor that the rural white voters did for Trump.”

Washington Post: “One error was to stick with a long-standing, one-dimensional campaign strategy: attacking Donald Trump. That strategy had been devised despite overwhelming evidence, not only in Trump’s rise but also in Clinton’s struggles during the Democratic primary against Bernie Sanders, that the electorate was looking for political and economic change.”

“Another problem, some said, was to devote resources in states Clinton did not need to win — notably Arizona — instead of shoring up support in deep-blue states, notably the Rust Belt, that she did need.”