Democrats are going to need a candidate in 2020.

Many politicians are scrambling to position themselves as in-tune with the far-left Democratic base.

But the Democratic nominee in 2020 could end up being a shocking and familiar figure.

Is Hillary Clinton running again?

That has been the subject of speculation from the pundit class ever since her shocking defeat to Donald Trump on November 8th.

Many acknowledge that pursuing the Presidency was a 30-year project for Hillary Clinton and she will not give it up that easily.

After the election, all of her actions were designed to undermine Trump and push the narrative that outside forces conspired against her to seal her defeat.

Clinton blamed “fake news” and Russian hackers for her loss.

And her team supported the recount efforts of Green Party nominee Dr. Jill Stein as an attempt to delegitimize Trump’s wins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Her team also never denounced the unhinged and threatening campaign launched against the Electoral College which pressured electorates to switch their votes from Trump and throw the election to the House of Representatives.

Writing in Politico, Matt Latimer predicts that Clinton’s post-election actions are setting the stage for another Presidential run:

“Consider. Since Clinton’s shock-the-world, hysteria-inducing defeat last November, the Clinton Global Initiative has dramatically scaled back its operations. The CGI—the most scandal-plagued arm of the Clinton Foundation—was a ground zero of grief for the Clinton campaign. Labeled a slush fund for political operations, paid for by foreign governments, it was an endless and easy target of complaints about conflicts of interest and graft. Yet despite pleas to do so by various supporters throughout the 2016 campaign, the Clintons time and again refused to shut it down or shrink its mandate until Bill Clinton made the announcement just weeks before Election Day. Which raises the question: What advantage, other than a political one, is there to actually going through with it now?

Similarly, why did the Clintons allow rumors to circulate—rumors they still haven’t officially quashed—that the former secretary of state was/is/might be considering a run for mayor of New York City? For the thrill of it? Out of spite toward the current mayor, who supported her candidacy for the White House? Or might there be another reason to keep alive the idea that Hillary Clinton’s political fortunes aren’t in the rear-view mirror?

This month, Clinton signed a book deal with Simon & Schuster. That alone isn’t noteworthy. This, after all, would be her seventh book, if you count her campaign policy venture/insomnia cure, Stronger Together. But added to all the other activities afoot, it raises a few questions. Does she really have that much more to say? Or might there be another reason, besides money that she does not need, to go on a book tour, answer humiliating questions about losing to Donald Trump and stay in the headlines?

And just days ago, Clinton trolled Trump on Twitter over the courtroom defeat of his executive order banning citizens from seven majority-Muslim nations. She didn’t have to do that, of course. Most defeated rivals disappear after their loss. Instead, Clinton sounded very much like she was still on the campaign trail. (Because, of course, she is.)

Finally, consider last November’s concession speech to Trump. Absent in her remarks was any indication, as one might have expected, that she was going gentle into that good night, handing the baton to a new generation or even to a new leader. Instead, Clinton talked more about the future—explicitly including herself in that future—than she did about the past.”

Does this mean Hillary Clinton is running again?

Latimer isn’t the only pundit to think so.

But will she actually pull the trigger on another run?