Um folks, the only way 2016 would be significant is if Trump won. If Hillary wins, it will just be supporting evidence for a critical election (analogous to 1968) in 2008. In the 1968 the dominant party was the Democratic party (having controlled the presidency 78% of the time since 1932; the Senate 89%, and the House 89% for an average value of 83%) yet a Republican was elected who had pioneered a strategy to welcome disaffected Democratic cultural conservatives into the GOP, which had traditionally been the culturally progressive party. Although Nixon in many ways ruled as a moderate and even a liberal on occasion, his electoral innovations helped pave the way for future conservative dominance--as the Democratic coalition began to fray. I believe that had there been no Watergate, Reagan would have been elected president in 1976 and overseen the implementation of the Nixon Revolution. Instead he had to start the revolution and it was left to a Democrat, Bill Clinton, to implement the Reagan Revolution.
Forty years after 1968 the dominant party was the Republican (having controlled the presidency 70%, the Senate 43%, and the House 30% of the time for an average value of 53%), yet a Democrat was elected. If Clinton wins and the Senate goes Democratic it will begin a 10 year era in which the Dems will have held the presidency for 100% of the time, the Senate 80% of the time, and the House 20%, for an average value of 75% (this is better than the 53% value they had over 1991-2000.)
In other words, if Clinton wins she is just a continuation of a process begun under Obama, not the start of anything of herself. And I think this suits her. By all accounts she is a workhorse. If you think of Clinton as Sisyphus in Camus's Myth of Sisyphus, the presidency will be her rock.
Forty years after 1968 the dominant party was the Republican (having controlled the presidency 70%, the Senate 43%, and the House 30% of the time for an average value of 53%), yet a Democrat was elected. If Clinton wins and the Senate goes Democratic it will begin a 10 year era in which the Dems will have held the presidency for 100% of the time, the Senate 80% of the time, and the House 20%, for an average value of 75% (this is better than the 53% value they had over 1991-2000.)
In other words, if Clinton wins she is just a continuation of a process begun under Obama, not the start of anything of herself. And I think this suits her. By all accounts she is a workhorse. If you think of Clinton as Sisyphus in Camus's Myth of Sisyphus, the presidency will be her rock.