Clinton Not Inevitable Nominee
Hillary Clinton is not the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee. Clinton was not the inevitable nominee in 2008, and she is not inevitable in 2016 either. Of course, this really isn't new or surprising, because nothing in politics is ever inevitable, really. Elections are always about as "evitable" as one can imagine.
The reason I'm starting this article out with such a basic truth is that two new polls appeared this weekend that said pretty much what a bunch of other polls have been saying for a while now. The pundit world, as a result, finally woke up to the reality that Bernie Sanders is not some sort of gadfly candidate. Sanders, the polls show, has a solid chance at winning New Hampshire and at least a decent chance of winning Iowa. If Clinton were to lose both states then the Democratic race's dynamics would shift in a major way.
This has been the dream scenario for Sanders supporters all along, and it's not looking like such an outside chance anymore. Clinton has long considered New Hampshire to be mostly irrelevant this time around, since Bernie winning there wouldn't be all that big a deal (since he hails from next-door Vermont). But if Clinton lost Iowa it would show stronger Sanders support than anyone predicted when he first entered the race.
Iowa's caucuses are a test of voters' endurance. Only the truly committed show up. Clinton has some very enthusiastic supporters (many excited that we could elect the first woman president), but then so does Bernie. His rallies are already legendary for their level of crowd excitement, and he's gotten more small donations than Hillary has managed (although Hillary, to be fair, has raised more money overall). If the caucuses turn out to be a measure of the depth or breadth of the excitement of their supporters, Sanders could indeed emerge the victor.
Hillary Clinton is obviously getting a little nervous about Bernie's chances, as she's pivoting from exclusively attacking Donald Trump (and the rest of the GOP field), to now trying to position herself to the left of Sanders on gun control. She wouldn't be bothering to attempt this strategy if she were wholly unconcerned about Bernie's chances, to state the obvious. Team Clinton insists that they're not really worried, since after New Hampshire and Iowa Clinton has a much stronger advantage heading into South Carolina and Nevada. But momentum can shift abruptly, and Sanders winning the first two contests might significantly erode Clinton's advantage in the next two states to vote. The media will be filled with stories of Sanders gaining support and Clinton losing it, most likely.
Even if Clinton does retain her edge by winning both Nevada and South Carolina, the two candidates will head into Super Tuesday tied at two states apiece. That's pretty even footing, although if this does come to pass Clinton will be getting the "comeback" stories written about her just before the first of March, when the next fourteen states will vote.
Examining Clinton's past record shows (to what extent is debatable, I fully concede in advance) weakness in the roster of these states -- something few have noticed, at this point. In 2008, Clinton won two of the traditional first four states (New Hampshire and Nevada) while Obama picked up two (Iowa and South Carolina). But back then Michigan and Florida jumped the line and voted early (this was a bone of contention in the Democratic world) and Hillary fought for and won both states (Obama did not fight for them, in protest over their jumping the line). Then a whopping 22 states participated in 2008's Super Tuesday, and Clinton only won seven of them (although she did win New York and California, which gave her a lot of delegates due to their population size).
This time around, out of the fourteen states voting, Clinton has only previously won five of them (Arkansas, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas). The nine other states voting in Super Tuesday (or "SEC Tuesday," as some are calling it) all went to Barack Obama (Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, North Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming).
Past performance may not be the best indicator of what's going to happen this time around, of course. Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama, and 2016 is not 2008. Hillary Clinton learned a hard lesson from how she lost last time around, and it's fair to assume she won't be making the same mistakes this time (such as virtually ignoring all the caucus states). Still, her record shows that back in 2008 -- when she was also considered the inevitable nominee -- she lost a lot of the states she's going to need on this year's Super Tuesday. She lost some of these states by wide margins, too.
In 2008, the biggest momentum shift was among African-American voters. Up until Obama started winning states, African-American support leaned heavily towards Clinton. Bill Clinton had always enjoyed strong support among this demographic, and electing a black man president was seen by many African-American voters as an unachievable dream. Right up until he started winning other states. Could Hillary's strong advantage with the African-American and Latino community also be subject to such erosion this time around? It's impossible to tell at this point, but it does remain a distinct possibility.
The split among the Democratic Party in 2008 left some deep wounds in the rank-and-file Democratic electorate. There was a very vocal community of Hillary Clinton supporters who felt so badly treated by the Obama campaign that they pledged never to support Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee. They had the charming label "PUMA," which stood for: "Party unity, my ass!" But although they were prominent online, a PUMA walkout at the convention never actually materialized. Most Democratic voters (obviously) followed the plea from Hillary Clinton to support Barack Obama in the general election.
There is a danger of such a rift happening this year as well, no matter who wins the party's nomination. If Bernie Sanders wins, there are going to be a lot of very frustrated and angry women out there, to put it mildly. Twice the party chooses a man instead of their favorite? That's going to cause some seething resentment. But party division may be more of a danger if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, because Bernie Sanders supporters consider Clinton no more than "Republican-lite" or a DINO (Democrat In Name Only). Her ties to Wall Street are going to be a bridge too far for a lot of fervent Sanders supporters. Some of them are already proclaiming publicly that they'll never vote for Clinton, if Sanders doesn't win. They sound pretty committed, although it remains to be seen how many of Bernie's legions of fans feel this strongly about Clinton.
Many of the "Bernie or nobody" crowd may be faced with a terrifying choice come November: vote for Hillary Clinton or (by staying home) help elect either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. The split in the Democratic Party may heal (as intra-party splits often do) by hatred and/or fear of the other team's candidate. Whoever wins, whether Sanders or Clinton, will woo Democrats back to the fold by pointing out that the next president could get to name as many as four Supreme Court justices, which could shift the balance of power on the court for a generation to come. Those are pretty high stakes, and this will be enough for many Democratic voters to vote for the candidate with the "D" next to their name, however unenthusiastically.
There is no guarantee, of course, that the name on that ballot will be Hillary Clinton. She's already vulnerable in at least two of the first four states to vote, and if she loses both Iowa and New Hampshire then the rest of the country (including the media) will start paying a lot more attention to Bernie Sanders's campaign. Democratic voters in South Carolina and Nevada might start "feeling the Bern," so to speak. Then Clinton has to win on Super Tuesday in a whole lot of states that didn't vote for her the last time around. Right now, even with the polling news from Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton still has to be seen as the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. Bernie Sanders still has a long way to go before he becomes competitive with Clinton nationwide. But such a swelling of support has happened before, so it could happen this time too. Even though Clinton holds the advantage now, she is a long way from being inevitable.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Those are pretty high stakes, and this will be enough for many Democratic voters to vote for the candidate with the "D" next to their name, however unenthusiastically.
Awwww, com'on!!!
No one on the Left would be enthralled SOLELY because of that micro little '-D' after a person's name!!! :D
Hillary's biggest problem to her "inevitably" is not Bernie Sanders but rather the FBI..
Michale
With regards to Hillary's actions dealing sexual assaults committed by her husband.
“No, I have nothing to say and I will leave it to voters to determine whether any of that is at all relevant to their decision.”
-Hillary Clinton
My gods, how can it NOT be relevant..
Here is a candidate who is RUNNING on a platform of helping sexual assault victims.. Of LISTENING to and EMPOWERING sexual assault victims..
How can her real life reactions towards real sexual assault victims NOT be relevant??
Michale
i've never been a believer in inevitability, but there really was some wisdom in the traditional republican method of selecting nominees. almost without fail, whoever came in second in one nomination was the "next up" in the following nomination, and that was very effective in vetting candidates for the necessary chops to win in the general election.
JL
JL [3]:
2016 is an unusual year - as you point out the presumptive Republican nominee would be Santorum based on the past, however in 2012 he was just the last non-establishment clown standing.
2012 set the stage for 2016 - Bachmann, Santorum, Moonshot Newt and Cain - there was no battle between two normal candidates - it was Mitt vs. the clown car, and so no heir presumptive for 2016.
Now we have the clown car driving the message, instead of a (relatively) sensible drumbeat from the establishment.
Heaven help us if Trump or Cruz wins the White House - there are even some Republicans who say they will back Hillary over either of these two.
I think the Democratic nomination is still Hillary's to lose. I really like Bernie - but America is not ready for his ideas (yet?).
I think it will be squeaky bum time in the Hillary camp for a couple of months, but her strength on the ground should put her comfortably over the finishing line.
I'm interested in who her VP will be - she could really go for it and pick Warren - but is America ready for an all woman ticket? Personally, if I were her, I'd pick Arnold Schwarzenegger - with Arnie, Bill will look like a saint, and Arnie will also trump Trump in the media star stakes - you heard it here first ;)
How utterly lame..
The White House is holding a "pre-game" show for the State Of The Union address...
Obama's exit can't come soon enough!!
Michale
nypoet22 -
Yeah, 2016 is pretty topsy-turvy, since the GOP is a "fall in love" field, and the Dems were supposed to be a "fall in line" field -- the exact opposite of the historical trend, where the GOP always went for the next-in-line guy.
neilm -
OK, most interesting veep suggestion yet!
However, Arnie can't be pres. At least not without a constitutional amendment. He's a naturalized US citizen. So he can't be veep, since to be veep you have to be eligible to take over the main job.
I'm thinking one of the Castro brothers (no, no, not them -- the American ones!) might be high on Hillary's list, personally...
-CW
Program Note:
I'll be posting a post-speech article tonight, with snap reactions. Enjoy the SOTU everyone!
:-)
-CW
I realize it may be swamped in the flood of "assessments" after tonight, but I find myself lingering over your remark about the next president selecting as many as four Supreme Court justices . . .
I follow all your commentators -- a pretty savvy bunch on either side -- but the Supreme Court "Card" is salient in my mind. Thanks for pointing this out. Hawkowl
Hawkowl -
Thanks for the kind words. I dug this out for you, where I explore the balance of power on SCOTUS in more depth:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/04/23/not-justice-ginsburg-but-the-two-after-her/
-CW
For everyone else:
My SOTU speech snap reactions are now up. Enjoy.
-CW
Hey CW
Given that Bernie hasn't been doing all that great of a job stressing his differences with Hillary, the narrowing of the polls shows what a weak candidate Hillary is... or perhaps that earlier polls were in fact skewed.
Hillary and her campaign now taking on Bernie directly is also worth noting. I keep hearing that "Hillary isn't making the same mistakes all over again", but these recent attacks on Bernie suggest otherwise.
Not only did she follow the same head in the sand, ignore him and he'll go away approach she tried against Obama, but now that that phase is over, she and her campaign are resorting to falsehoods against Bernie rather than honest debate. Her lies and misrepresentations about Bernie's economic policies are completely in line with Establishment thinking... and exactly what we will get from Republicans too if Bernie is the nominee. Hillary is not only doing the bidding of the status quo, she is potentially hurting her own party's chances by spreading these falsehoods.
Such dishonesty is what will cement the split in the party if it continues.
As for the SCOTUS nominee angle that has become the Hillary camps standard line of attack against Bernie (ahem), there is something worth keeping in mind. Our Wall Street corporatist Dem presidents Obama and Bill Clinton both gave us very establishment, Wall Street friendly corporatist SCOTUS nominees.
The idea that Hillary will protect and "save" Democratic priorities by choosing good nominees doesn't hold much water.
A Wall Street coddler isn't going to nominate judges that will overturn Citizens United.
A Wall Street coddler isn't going to nominate judges that will end the attacks on unions.
A wall Street coddler isn't going to nominate judges that prioritize environmental protection.
A defender of the Constitution violating NSA isn't going to nominate judges that will end those violations.
Even on abortion I wouldn't trust Hillary's nominees, because if they are anything like her, they won't be trustworthy... not to mention that more women have lost access to legal reproductive services under Obama than any president since Roe, with nary a peep from Hillary.
So, the SCOTUS argument isn't so much about the priorities of Dems, and certainly not the priorities of the Left. Those who confuse the priorities of the Establishment with those of Dems and the Left are seriously spinning.
In any case, it was a Bush nominee that was key in upholding Wall Street friendly, right wing Obamacare and in legalized gay marriage, so anybody raising those two issues in an argument in reference to the Supreme Court nominees is also spinning.
A
Well said, Biga... I completely agree!! :D
"That oughta clinch up their sphincters!"
-Rachael Phelps, MAJOR LEAGUE
:D
Michale
The FBI reportedly has assigned some 100 agents full time to the investigation and another 50 temporarily. The bureau would not commit such massive resources unless the initial investigation raised troubling questions of potential criminality. FBI Director James Comey is monitoring the case closely and coordinating with the intelligence agencies, which have to review the documents. Comey has a reputation for integrity, and it is his call whether to refer charges to the DOJ. Attorney General Loretta Lynch would then decide whether to indict.
Whatever Lynch decides, there will be a maelstrom if FBI agents found substantial evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/13/hillary_clintons_coming_legal_crisis_129293.html
This is the problem that Hillary *AND* The Democrat Party faces...
It's almost guaranteed that the FBI will recommend prosecution. Comey is too honorable a man to be swayed by political considerations... And you don't assign 150 agents to a case that is "iffy"...
So, there is really no doubt that SOMEONE is going to be prosecuted...
And, if Hillary ISN'T prosecuted, it will look like a cover-up and that will destroy the Democrat's chances of keeping the White House..
If Hillary IS prosecuted, that will destroy the Democrat's chances of keeping the White House..
Of course, Hillary will try and play the victim.. THAT schtick won't go over well because the American people are sick and tired of seeing Hillary play the victim over and over and over and over again... Joe & Jane SixPack will say to themselves, "Ya know, Hillary seems to step in shit constantly... Maybe it's not a 'vast right wing conspiracy'.. Maybe Hillary IS a crook.."
No one can deny the very real possibility that Hillary will be facing DOJ prosecution WHILE running for President...
And, if that happens, the Democrat Party can kiss their chances of taking the Senate and keeping the White House goodbye for a LONG time...
You heard it here first...
Michale
The FBI reportedly has assigned some 100 agents full time to the investigation and another 50 temporarily. The bureau would not commit such massive resources unless the initial investigation raised troubling questions of potential criminality. FBI Director James Comey is monitoring the case closely and coordinating with the intelligence agencies, which have to review the documents. Comey has a reputation for integrity, and it is his call whether to refer charges to the DOJ. Attorney General Loretta Lynch would then decide whether to indict.
Whatever Lynch decides, there will be a maelstrom if FBI agents found substantial evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
http://tinyurl.com/j86xrct
This is the problem that Hillary *AND* The Democrat Party faces...
It's almost guaranteed that the FBI will recommend prosecution. Comey is too honorable a man to be swayed by political considerations... And you don't assign 150 agents to a case that is "iffy"...
So, there is really no doubt that SOMEONE is going to be prosecuted...
And, if Hillary ISN'T prosecuted, it will look like a cover-up and that will destroy the Democrat's chances of keeping the White House..
If Hillary IS prosecuted, that will destroy the Democrat's chances of keeping the White House..
Of course, Hillary will try and play the victim.. THAT schtick won't go over well because the American people are sick and tired of seeing Hillary play the victim over and over and over and over again... Joe & Jane SixPack will say to themselves, "Ya know, Hillary seems to step in shit constantly... Maybe it's not a 'vast right wing conspiracy'.. Maybe Hillary IS a crook.."
No one can deny the very real possibility that Hillary will be facing DOJ prosecution WHILE running for President...
And, if that happens, the Democrat Party can kiss their chances of taking the Senate and keeping the White House goodbye for a LONG time...
You heard it here first...
Michale
Hay CW,
I got a comment stuck in the NNL filter... :D
Michale
Michale -
Sorry. There you go. Deleted the duplicate...
-CW
Tanks, CW.. :D
Michale
Micha
Anybody that thinks Comey has a "reputation for integrity" and is "too honorable a man" is a hopeless defender of the Establishment.
Pretending that his record isn't tarnished by the very same ideology and policies that Hillary, Obama, and all the Repubs support is likewise Establishment propaganda.
Integrity to the Establishment system is very different that actual integrity in law, ethics or American values.
I'm not the least bit surprised you are deluded about that reality, and complicit in hiding that reality, so I'm just setting the record straight for any others that may stumble upon this thread.
It is funny that your "independent" partisanship has you believing that the Establishment will prosecute Hillary, when her actual crimes are fully in line with standard Establishment business as usual though.
Not ha, ha funny.
A
Biga,
Do you have any FACTS that call into question Comey's integrity??
No??
Didn't think so...
Michale
Pretending that his record isn't tarnished by the very same ideology and policies that Hillary, Obama, and all the Repubs support is likewise Establishment propaganda.
Integrity to the Establishment system is very different that actual integrity in law, ethics or American values.
So... Biga For Trump, eh?
I knew it!!! :D hehehehehehehehe
Michale
You see, Biga... What you fail to comprehend is that the *ONLY* Anti-Establishment candidate out there is Donald Trump..
Sanders??
He's been a sitting CongressCritter for over a quarter of a century.. What has he accomplished?? The country is still in the firm grip of the Establishment...
Sanders is as much a part of The Establishment as Hillary Clinton is...
The ONLY true Anti-Establishment candidate is none other than Donald Trump..
So, if you are truly anti-establishment, then you are a Trumpkin.. :D
"Simple logic.."
-Admiral James T Kirk
Michale
No Micha
You're just an idiot wingnut for believing the propaganda you regurgitate without getting paid for it... and for letting me make you pay to support the forum where I get to point it out.
"Yes they do Otto, they just don't understand it"
-Wanda
A
You're just an idiot wingnut for believing the propaganda you regurgitate without getting paid for it... and for letting me make you pay to support the forum where I get to point it out.
That's your opinion and I respect that..
But it's an opinion borne of complete ignorance and totally devoid of any facts whatsoever... :D
"Yes they do Otto, they just don't understand it"
-Wanda
I have taught you well, grasshopper... :D
Michale