With the exception of her tired complaints about liberal media bias, I largely agree with Myra Adam’s analysis about why Hillary Clinton will be elected president in 2016, albeit with the same caveats that Ms. Adams provides.
Basically, it comes down to the fact that no one on either side of the aisle can beat her. You can add to that that it is almost inconceivable at this point that any Republican could get 270 electoral votes against any Democrat.
Perhaps the most interesting of Ms. Adams’ observations is about the role of age and how it will probably help Hillary Clinton much more than it hurts her. I hadn’t thought of the fact that Hillary’s age will help her do better with the elderly, particularly when she is attacked for being too old for the job.
There is also a regional advantage that Hillary brings to the table that cannot be matched by any other plausible Democratic contender. Her husband twice won Arkansas and West Virginia. While times have changed, the Clintons are simply much more popular in Appalachia and parts of the South than any other prominent Democrats. And, unlike your typical Blue Dogs, they don’t win support through bashing the left but simply by being who they are. The Clintons have enough support in places like southern Ohio that she won’t even need to campaign in the Buckeye State. It simply won’t be competitive.
The best argument for Hillary’s campaign is that she is the only candidate who could really roll up the score and win 40 states. And the left needs a victory that big to break the impasse in Washington. Reelecting Obama was a great victory, but the benefit is primarily defensive in nature. Most of what we gained is in what we prevented from happening. That’s not a slap at Obama or praise of Hillary; it’s just a fact that the 2012 victory was not big enough. Another relatively close election will leave us in a similar situation.
You might argue that Clinton is overrated and that she ran a bad campaign in 2008. To some degree, I would agree on both points, although I think she actually ran a strong campaign that was simply outsmarted from the start. She won’t be facing anyone as strong as President Obama, and she’ll be the beneficiary of much of his talented staff and trained volunteers.
There is certainly room on Hillary’s left for a progressive challenger, and I would be surprised if one doesn’t emerge and get some real energy. I know I will be very interested in that effort because most of the concerns I had about a Clinton restoration in 2008 will remain concerns in 2016. But I can’t predict a successful effort.
If her health and ambition hold up, the only question will be about the size of her victory and what she can do with it.
This is moving tribute to Lindy Boggs by her grandson (and my childhood friend) Steve Sigmund.
From what I can remember, she was pretty much a lock to win the Democratic nomination back in 2005.
And then, Barack attacked!
And while she didn’t run a bad campaign, she didn’t run a great one either. Mark Penn literally almost single-handedly, ruined her campaign.
So having the Obama folks helping her out, will certainly boost her chances of winning.
I’m going to be optimistic, and say that if she does win, she will be less of a triangulater than Bill was.
I always suspected that they both had their eyes on Hillary running in the future. And so they both always were pretty center-right.
Hopefully, she’ll feel free to be more Liberal than either Bill or Obama.
I’m 55, and I feel almost 100% sure that I’ll never live to see a truly Liberal President.
Hopefully, some of you will.
If Hillary does actually win 40 states, that probably means veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress. Which means even if Hillary herself is kind of a triangulator, her record will still be way to the left of Obama.
Excellent point. Look at Gov. Hickenlooper in Colorado. He’s always had a reputation as a pro-business centrist/pragmatist. Then he got a Democratically-controlled legislature that started sending him more progressive bills to sign into law. Now he’s seen as more of a liberal…when all that’s changed is the political universe in which he’s operating.
Hillary is not a liberal. Never was and never will be. She was a Goldwater Republican.
Yeah, I know.
And that obviously does worry me.
But Obama is nearly a Bush Republican. The question is: will Hillary be more or less liberal than Obama. I don’t know, but if I could wave my hand retroactively change her to the 2008 nominee … I’d be sorely tempted to roll the dice.
This is ridiculous. Were you awake during the W Administration? How many frivolous wars have we started in the last four years? DADT is gone. DOMA is gone. Universal healthcare is becoming a reality (and the problems with ObamaCare are largely the result of Congressional sausage-making, not the fault of the President). Torture is ended. We’ve left Iraq and we’re leaving Afghanistan, maybe even earlier than originally planned. The President wants to close Gitmo, but the C-word won’t let him. In what way is he a “Bush Republican”??
It’s one thing to be disappointed, but come on!
The President has disappointed me in a number of areas (particularly fiscal matters and NSA spying), but mostly it’s Congress (or the “C-word”, as John Oliver calls it) that’s most disappointing. I have more confidence that Obama will keep us out of attacking Iran than I would of Hillary. I have more confidence that Obama will not get us more involved in Syria than I have of Hillary. Most of the people that I don’t like in the Obama Administration are basically Clinton people (I would say that the biggest let-down in 2008-early 2009 was seeing so many Clinton hands getting jobs in the nascent Obama Administration; fresh blood was one of the biggest reasons to support him). Obama mishandled the politics of ObamaCare, but when Scott Brown won the special election for Ted Kennedy’s seat in 2010, I remember reading that Hillary wouldn’t have risked as much as Obama did to bring it over the finish line (of course, who knows for sure, but she has always struck me as too cautious and reliant on Beltway “wisdom”, which was very much “time to pull the plug” in early 2010).
I simply don’t trust her on foreign policy. When John McCain thinks you’re good, be very concerned. She was good as Secretary of State, but Obama was in the big chair. I can’t read that performance into something it’s not.
Obsesses is so dispirited by the similarity of Obama’s foreign policy to Bush’s that he wants to swap out Obama for someone who supported the Iraq War.
I meant Bush Democrat in terms of the economy.
If you meant President Obama is a “Bush Democrat”, I’d respectfully disagree. For example, ask yourself if President Bush would have pushed for, and signed the Recovery Act. http://masscommons.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/the-new-new-deal-the-hidden-story-of-change-in-the-obama
-era/
also note the effect of ACA on the deficit already
>I’m 55, and I feel almost 100% sure that I’ll never live to see a truly Liberal President. Hopefully, some of you will.
I’m 58 and I fully intend to see a truly liberal president in 2028 … let’s see, I’d only have to make it to 72 and you’ll be a spring chicken at 69.
By then, whites will be below 50% and the liberal-conservative mix within that 50% will be significantly better than it is now. The core motivation for conservatism is to hang on to the inherited money and privilege that gives whites an advantage. When the vast majority comprises people who have been unfairly denied equal privilege we’ll get our truly liberal president. Getting a truly liberal senate and house will require campaign finance reform and for that we need one more SCOTUS pick, but it’s hard to imagine Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas all making it to 2028. Kennedy and Scalia are both 77, so they’d be 93. Kennedy looks like he might make it 93 but Scalia looks pretty bad to me. Thomas is only 65, so he’d be 81, but he’s the least healthy looking of the bunch. All that anger and rage bubbling right beneath the surface of his scowling face – man looks like he’s about to explode. If we could stop corporations from being able to contribute to politicians then we could finally get some democratic senators who aren’t completely corrupt. Of course, the replacements would have to be willing to overturn precedent.
This is very cool (if you’re a sick f&*@ like me)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/01/supreme_court_justice_death_ca
lculator_find_out_the_probabilities_that_different.html
Scalia has an 18.86% chance of getting his own show on the great Fox News Channel in the sky before 2017. Of course, the calculator is 6 months old, so that’s probably gone down. And there’s a 46% chance(according to this silly calculator) that at least one conservative justice will see his maker giving him the thumbs down before 2017.
Oh well. Could we maybe have Elizabeth Warren for vice president at least?
For those concerned that Clinton isn’t progressive enough, the best strategy may be to use the juggernaut to retake as much of Congress as possible. If the Republicans nominate Rand Paul, for instance, we’re going to find out how much open racism American voters can stomach, and every single Republican candidate will be tainted by the stench. The Congress needs a leftward push a lot more than the executive branch does right now, anyway.
I want Warren to stay in the Senate. Her personality – polite, soft-spoken, but determined – seems most suited to that institution. Look how much good she’s doing there now, just in a few months of being there. If she were Veep, she’d be neutered. As Prez, I have no sense of how she would be on national security issues, substantively or politically. And Nat Sec is in some ways much more in the Prez’s domain than domestic stuff.
Let’s try not to elevate all our political heroes to the presidency. We ought to focus on getting more of them into Congress instead – that’s where we really need them right now.
Oh, I know. I’m not unrealistic. And I absolutely agree that the Democrats should focus on Congress, given the statistical improbability of any Republican winning the presidency. What I really want to see is the return of Speaker Pelosi.
>Democrats should focus on Congress
Okay – question: Do the dems have a better (small) chance of taking the House in 2016 if the Republicans win it in 2014 and continue to be ridiculous? Or would it be better to have a razor thin democratic majority in 2014?
Yes, she’s doing great in the Senate. O’Malley for VP
I really don’t like the strategy of picking a young, fresh face for Vice President, a political protege to groom. I like the opposite – picking an elder statesman who can step right in without a learning curve if the President has a heart attack on Day 3.
>Could we maybe have Elizabeth Warren for vice president at least?
Now you’re talking! Then Hillary retires for health reasons and President Warren appoints Bernie Sanders or Sheldon Whitehouse as VP and Paul Krugman as Sec. of the Treasury.
And then President Warren has to compromise on something because Senator Kardashian-West can’t support it in its current form, and then you regret that you ever believed in the illusion of Elizabeth Warren, because you longed for Uma Thurman in Kill Bill but all you got was Miley Cyrus.
4 stars for a great comeback, but seriously:
Larry Summers
Chained CPI for Social Security
These are not “compromise on some issue”. Opposing them is not some unrealistic hippie complaining that Obama isn’t a fairy tale liberal. Obama’s positions on a whole slate of economic matters are pure anti-progressive poison. The repeal of Glass Steagall (Summers) and extreme corporate deregulation (Summers) and the screwed up understimulus of 2009 (Summers) are big f%$%$%g deals – those things did very serious damage to the middle class and while you jokers are defending Obama (“be realistic he had to compromise”) Obama is trying to slip chained CPI into social security which is going to cause each and every one of you serious and ongoing pain.
Your two examples are things that didn’t happen.
Think about that; to make your case, no actual, implemented policies came to mind.
It doesn’t matter a whole lot how many electoral college votes Hilary or any Democrat wins above 270 EC votes. What matters is whether they can win both Houses of Congress as well. If I were to fault the Obama campaigns, it is that they were almost solely concerned with winning the Presidency and paid relatively little attention to winning Congress as well. Even a good President like Obama can do little with a hostile Congress. I would rather a bare 270 vote Presidential win and a Dem in in both houses of Congress, than a 400 EC vote presidential win. The latter might provide some transitory “momentum” for the first few months, but then that rapidly dies or is frittered away. Dem Presidents who can’t or won’t implement Dem policies rapidly lose their momentum and legitimacy.
The two are completely related.
All these Republican-drawn congressional districts are only safe if the electorate looks largely like the electorate of 2004-2012, where white working class folks and the elderly went heavily for the GOP. But the Clintons are much more popular with both groups than John Kerry or Obama or even Gore.
Obama won 332 electoral College votes and by a 4% margin in the popular vote – but could still not win the House which mattered much more than those margins of victory. So the relationship is not automatic – although I accept the electorate will look different in 2016 especially if Clinton is nominated.
You’ve just highlighted the effects of the Republican Gerrymandered House. That’s not the fault of the Democratic Presidential candidate, that’s the power of Gerrymandering on display.
That too.
We’ve seen the Clinton juggernaut before. She hired Mark Penn. Guess this time she’ll hire Lanny Davis.
Meanwhile Jim Messina (liaison between Baucus and the White House on health care) is doing a campaign consulting stint with the UK’s Conservative Party. Guess he’s going to help them reform the NHS some more.
Maybe Messina’s prepping for the slot.
Yup. If I could sum up the problem with the Clintons in two words, those two words would be: Lanny Davis.
Jane Hamsher’s biggest gift to the Democratic Party was to out his shilling self on MSNBC. The corrupt part of the Democratic Party didn’t like that interview one bit.
Hilarious:
Lanny Davis and his chosen running mate.
Mystery photo
Seriously, how can anyone write a piece about Hillary Clinton’s inevitability without at least nodding toward the 2008 campaign?
In particular, saying there’s nobody talented enough on either side, three years out? Obama wasn’t on anyone’s 2008 lists in August 2005, either.
I have to believe HRC learned some lessons (maybe not good ones) from her 2008 run; and her stint as SoS was a pleasant surprise given her overall hawkishness. Plus, nobody gets elected senator from New York – twice – with no history in the state – without being seriously in bed with Wall Street. Which is part, but by no means all, of the “look at the crowd she brings” issue. All that said, I’m sure we could do worse, and I’m sure we’ll be given the opportunity.
But…2016? Let’s get to 2014 first. And put some serious resources into both controlling Congress and getting more support to the local level in non-traditionally blue states. Too many states that shouldn’t be right now (MI, OH, PA, WI, NC, FL, VA, AZ, among others) are being held hostage by right wing wackos, and it’s doing real damage while we wonder about Barack’s replacement. As titular head of his party, largely abandoning the 50-state strategy and giving the DNC to people like Tim Keane has been one of Obama’s biggest hidden mistakes.
Well, Obama is one of a kind, first of all. Second, Hillary lacked foreign policy experience – that Obama gave her. She now has a credential she was seriously lacking in 2008.
I assume 2016 is what the new and questionable “Monica tape” is about.
Also, the race barrier having been cracked, the pressure to break the gender barrier is redoubled and the female electorate is … well, it’s certainly well over 50%, not sure how much.
But the main thing is that the “skewed poll” guys in 2012 had it exactly backwards. Obama didn’t win because of the minority vote; he won in spite of the racist white backlash vote. Think back to the 2008 primaries. Hillary decimated Obama in any state with a lot of blue collar whites. She’ll do better with women and way better with whitey. Obama performed strongly with minorites – Hillary will equal that but her greatest strengths are with the two most overwhelming majority groups – women and whites.
As long as her health holds up and she uses Obama’s crew instead of Mark Penn I think “juggernaut” is a very appropriate term. And even if she ran as bad a campaign as she did in 2008 I’d still use the j-word. Think about it – she probably would have edged out Obama if not for her staff’s grotesque incompetence in handling the vagaries of the non-primary caucus states. And you can be REALLY sure she won’t make THAT mistake again. Can you imagine how many hours she’s spent kicking herself about that? The other big mistake in 2008 was her overconfident, somewhat windbaggish, accidentally embarrassing demeanor versus Obama’s Mr. Cool, No Drama approach. After watching 8 years of that it’s impossible to imagine that she won’t be many times more slick than ’08. She got through the entire SoS gig without ONCE making any kind of embarrassing statement.
In summary, she’ll probably never be the natural politician that Obama or Bill is, but she’ll be way better than ’08 and her ’08 persona would be more than enough for 350+ electoral votes in ’16. Plus she has much better demographics than Bill and infinitely better demographics than Obama.
So the question is what kind of president she’ll be. I was frantically and passionately in favor of Obama over Clinton and by mid-2009 I felt like a complete fool. My one misgiving in ’08 was that in my gut I thought Hillary was smarter and tougher but I convinced myself that Obama was at least as smart and tough and much more ethical and progressive. Now it’s painfully obvious that he’s not even close in terms of brains or braun. He’s got the best sense of humor since JFK and is the most comfortable in his own skin of anyone ever, but he’s not only not smart enough, he has an inflated sense of how smart academics are. Amazingly, his Harvard-worship makes him unable to see Larry Summers’ track record of never being right about anything. And his skittishness about being perceived as an angry black man puts him at a total disadvantage in every fight. When I voted for a black man for president, I was hoping for Wesley Snipes, but I got Step ‘n’ Fetchit instead. Ugh – don’t get me started. At least Obama saved us from McCain and Romney and gave us two younger SCOTUS picks – and Obamacare is probably halfway between how good it could have been and how bad not having it was so that’s a game-changer. And breaking the race barrier was a nice bonus. And the executive actions on immigration and LGBT(better late than never). Plus his hilarious monologues at the WH Press dinners. That’s all the good things I can say about the savior who fell to earth – hopefully the tea party will stop him from gutting social security and medicare and he can ride off into the sunset – I can’t imagine Hillary not being at least somewhat better and in terms of protecting us from a GOP president, she’s pure gold.
Totally disagree with you about Obama – I think he’s amazing. I do alot of travelling in my work – for the most part ppl here have no clue what’s going on out there. I think the history books will show Obama has been totally amazing, especially given what he’s up against. Disappointed with his supposed support of Larry Summers, but also here the proof is in the pudding. As far as Hillary goes, I hope her stint as SOS has given her a different perspective.. We meed to move past the 60’s 70’s polarization; a strong dem win with strong dem Congress will be good, and maybe she’ll call on Barack for advice
Did it happen and I missed it?
How can you be so sure about President Obama’s “skittishness”? My sense is he’s about as “skittish” as Jackie Robinson was in 1947-49 (check the record books). Don’t mistake a “mask” of outward calm for 1) an unwillingness or 2) an inability to fight.
This is politics, not Hollywood, but if you’re going to use Hollywood analogies, Obama is Denzel Washington, not Wesley Snipes.
That’s what I’ve always had to remind myself whenever I get “frustrated” with one or another WH semi-fuckup. Obama is Robinson and he has to stay cool for the very same reasons.
On the other hand, even Robinson got to fight back and take no shit after 3(?) years. On the other other hand, Robinson’s career and life was undoubtedly shortened from the crap he endured and Herculean self-control he had to exhibit.
So not a perfect 1-1 comparison, but it’s been close enough for me. I can swallow all manner of other shitty contradictions when I remember that.
Good point about Robinson after three years. It seems to me that an under-reported aspect of President Obama’s remarks about the Trayvon Martin case was the degree to which he was unapologetically one-sided—no mention of the Zimmerman family, strengthening (rather than weakening or ignoring) his identification with Martin, speaking as fully from within the experience of the African-American community as he has since being elected president.
It’s not an exact parallel to Jackie Robinson sliding into 2nd base with his spikes high, stealing a base after getting intentionally hit by the pitcher. But it’s not nothing either.
I think it’s interesting that 42 was made now; maybe it’s the timing but it seems to have been made with the parallels in mind.
Maybe the problem is that you expect a dragonslayer or a savior and then when all you get is a president you feel buyer’s remorse. And you will again, and again, until you recalibrate your expectations.
Maybe the problem is that you expect a dragonslayer or a savior and then when all you get is a president you feel buyer’s remorse.
Or maybe the problem is that the “old Obama fan” who describes him as “the savior that fell to earth” isn’t exactly what he claims.
Also, there is a tremendous difference between having the ACA and not having it. It’s just one example, though a major one, of what Obama has accomplished (and Hillary could not have). Watch the videos of the multi-day bipartisan health care meeting of Feb 2010 http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/bipartisan-meeting
Hillary could not do that
Step N Fetchit?
Not smart enough?
Seriously, eff you.
As I told Calvin, the insiders I know in the campaign had this to say about Messina:
The insiders I know from the Obama campaign have told me thus:
“so i’m gonna give u some luxury realness truth: Jim Messina may have been campaign manager in name but he had no real power on the campaign. David Plouffe still ran everything from behind the scenes.
Messina was just a fucking figurehead. He’s all bout dem dollars. No one likes him and we all called him random fish (foto coming soon)
So go head and make dem torie dollars, Messina. Fuck you.”
He’s all ’bout dem dollars indeed. But he got himself stamped with that Obama brand on his resume. I think Baucus sent him to the White House to (1) get rid of him and (2) to provide a backchannel of what was going on. And the White House sent him to a life of unemployment after the campaign. And Baucus decided to retire after hanging his piece-of-crap bill around Obama’s neck. Both off to cash in.
I can’t wait to see heads on the right exploding at the site of the Clintons back in the white house. With Bill as “First Man” and Hillary, who is probably hated by the right damn near as much as they hated Obama, will drive ’em crazy.
Jeebus, you approve of that garbage? It’s stale right-wing anti-Clinton and anti-“Democrat Party” (they actually call it that) propaganda. Democrats like affirmative action candidates, Democrats want a celebrity, Democrats engage in groupthink, the media wants the Democrats to win…even the nonsensical whining about how the electoral system is skewed towards the Democrats.
Meanwhile, not the slightest recognition, in the middle of Obama’s term, that Democratic primary voters are a messy lot who don’t do what they’re told.
You make a a good case, BooMan. That piece of Red State dreck certainly doesn’t.
You just have to pick through a bit of the garbage to see that she’s basically right. Plus, I’m trolling those fools.
I live about 30 miles north of Dayton, Ohio.
Right now HRC has my vote – primary and General.
Hopefully she can carry more than 219 CDs.
If Ohio’s not contested, the Democratic candidate starts out with 270 EC votes.
http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bDqi
I’m having trouble getting past 379
http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bDqn
maybe MT?
Georgia and Arizona get you to 406—both states with large and fast-growing minority electorates.
And Democrats laugh at Republicans pining for another Bush President. At least those GOP folks aren’t sucking up 90% of the national electoral political oxygen for a contest that doesn’t begin for another year and a half with their fantasies of a dynastic retread.
Y’all like that Third Way (previously known as the DLC) of corporate control and rule, Mark Penn, WalMart, etc., then Hillary Clinton is your cup of tea. Count me out.
They don’t win support by bashing the left? How about race baiting the left?
To hell with Hillary and the entire Clinton dynasty. What a disaster they have been for our country and our party.
Yep, that South Carolina strategy to knock off Obama was kinda a disaster, wasn’t it.
The Democratic Party disaster started long before the Clinton Presidency.
Long before indeed. That Andrew Jackson was kind of an asshole.
I was very down on Hillary Clinton in 2008, but her performance as Secretary of State has hardly been a disaster for our country and party.
I’m always the first to bash you, so it’s only fair to say that you’ve nailed it from all angles here.
I’ve stopped emailing Obama – I’m convinced that he uses his mail to figure out what his base wants so he can do exactly the opposite. Instead I email Hillary. It’s so obvious to me that she’ll be elected comfortably that I’m trying to influence her now when there are still only a few thousand emails coming in a day.
Of course, this post and its comments will still be lurking in the bowels of google in 2016 when Rand Paul is sworn in and we return to the gold standard. And then he’ll probably renegue on cutting of aid to Netanyahu.
Wait a second. Do you seriously e-mail Obama? Do you expect that to accomplish anything? If you’re going to do this, at least write a physical letter.
“I can’t understand why politicians are so slow to adopt the angry opinions I constantly email at them!”
I’ve said it many times before and I’ll reiterate once again, the Clintons’ political capital with me can be valued in Confederate dollars…
If Hillary and Bill have such major influence here in states like Kentucky (and they do) where the hell were they in 2010?
Brian Schweitzer isn’t running for Senate – does that mean he’s considering a run for prez? [“they” said he wasn’t running for Senate b/c he prefers to live and govern in his home state]. If so, would be good. I’m hoping for a candidate from the West with strength in rural/ ag issues
Probably the most even-handed essay on the Clinton 2016 possibilities. The strongest point was noting a massive DEM landslide in 2016 might well be the dramatic event needed to shatter the poisonous GOP/Tea Party/Southern Strategy model once and for all. That almost has me hoping for a Clinton candidacy in 2016.
But not quite. The majority of me is still repulsed by way Americans fall over themselves to create an elite hereditary class of political families. Tafts, Kennedys, Bushes, Byahs, Udalls, the list just goes on and on. We had a father-son team in the WH and that didn’t work out so well. Now we’re looking at two Presidents from the same marriage?
So much for that notion Americans have no stomach for royalty. So much for meritocracy. We love to tell one another those conceits, but voting history shows Americans crave quasi-royal families.
As one might deduce, this is pet peeve of mine.