Because Donald Trump has no political peer when it comes to self-sabotage, many of us fail to give Hillary Clinton her due. If occurrences of the questions such as “Why would you do that?” or “What in God’s name?” are any measure of political malpractice, then the Clintons deserve at least an honorable mention. When we read about how Bill Clinton earned $16.5 million for acting as honorary chancellor for a large for-profit university chain, or how foreign states donated to the Clinton Foundation even as they had business before the State Department, or how Hillary Clinton left state only to jump right into buckraking with speeches to financiers, we might be tempted to ask what on earth the Clintons were thinking. Hillary is just lucky to be running against Trump, someone whose antics—even under Stephen Bannon’s custody—regularly disrupt anti-Clinton musings with such force that one loses the train of thought.

When Trump fades from the stage, however, all that will change. Currently, many journalists appear to view themselves as duty-bound to ensure the defeat of Trump, with any resulting hits to credibility left for future repair. But once passions have cooled and Trump is out of the way, the press will resume its former relationship with the Clintons, best described as chilly.

The public, for its part, seems prepared to dislike Hillary from day one, if her favorable/unfavorable numbers are anything to go by. In short, Clinton’s putative presidency will be relentlessly rocky, and unless Republicans nominate another Trump in 2020, it seems unlikely to last more than one term. The Clintons must recognize some of these problems. So the question arises: What is Hillary’s five-year plan?

One possibility is that she intends to serve only one term and then step aside. There’s a decent case to be made for such an approach. Clinton, who will be 69 and two months on Inauguration Day, would be second only to Ronald Reagan in age when taking office. We can dismiss the rumors about Clinton’s failing health, since they are mainly the product of a coordinated whispering campaign—one incidentally predicted by Scott Adams last March—but being POTUS is a brutal job at any age, let alone someone over 70. (Even Reagan, judged by many to have been effective during his time in office, seemed less sharp in his second term, a decline that one of his sons has even ascribed to early-stage Alzheimer’s.)

“For Clinton pursuers, it is a life-sapping obsession that leads to madness, because the smoking guns are everywhere and nowhere.”

If Fortune 500 companies rarely hire C.E.O.s who are 72, the age Clinton will reach during the campaign of 2020, should a country be any different? Leaving office after one term would reduce the chances of health-related crises, and it would open up the field to younger Democratic candidates, including her own vice president, Tim Kaine. That might also increase the odds of Democrats holding onto the White House for more than three terms, something they’ve achieved only once in the party’s history, under F.D.R.

That’s a set of arguments, at least, but there’s almost no chance they’d move Hillary in the slightest. For one thing, no one in her circle would dare make them. (It’s no way to get a promotion.) For another, one reason the Clintons run for office is that they enjoy being in office. Leaving office would remove that enjoyment.

Also, they prioritize their personal interests highly, even if it inconveniences everyone else. Al Gore would have had a much better shot in 2000 if Bill Clinton had quit after revelations that he had lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, but Bill was determined to hold on. Similarly, when Barack Obama had secured enough delegates in 2008 and was scrambling to unite the party, the Clinton camp suggested seeking a roll-call vote at the Democratic convention, “for Chelsea’s sake,” as if undermining the nominee were a small price to pay for a solid take-your-Clinton-daughter-to-work day. It’s safe to assume part of Hillary Clinton’s five-year plan involves running for re-election.