In answer to Noam Scheiber, I think President Obama would have to, at a minimum, profess his neutrality, in order for anyone to credibly challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016. Critics of Obama tend to focus on figures like Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner, and Larry Summers, without recognizing that the president promoted Elizabeth Warren every step of the way, from her role overseeing TARP to her candidacy to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to her successful U.S. Senate bid. Would the president withhold his blessing for Clinton’s campaign if she were to find herself in a primary contest against Warren? I think it is possible, although I also think it is unlikely.
While Elizabeth Warren is an emerging force in the Democratic Party, Clinton, like Obama, is a titan on the national stage. If polling numbers can give us any reliable indication this far out from an election, Clinton has the potential to beat a Republican opponent nearly as badly as Reagan beat Mondale. She has polled competitively even in Texas. She has a sterling resume as a former activist First Lady, and well-respected U.S. Senator, a strong presidential candidate, and a successful Secretary of State. She has connections everywhere, and while it might create some liabilities in a primary, her coziness with Wall Street is unlikely to harm her in a general election.
The president will be heavily-vested in assuring that he is succeeded by a Democrat, preferably with coattails. Hillary Clinton looks like the strongest presidential candidate this country has seen since Reagan sought reelection. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, has a thin resume, hails from a state known for giving us failed presidential candidates, and could probably only win a demographic battle with a narrow margin in the Electoral College, if she could win at all. However much the president might respect Elizabeth Warren, I don’t think he’d be willing to risk his legacy by backing her, or even by staying strictly neutral.
Democratic primary voters will take their cue from the president. While the progressives, particularly the white progressives, would be extremely sympathetic to Warren, most progressives will look to the president for a sign, and that sign is likely to be in favor of Clinton.
Having said that, I think Scheiber has introduced an interesting debate about what the effect would be on the nominating process, on Hillary’s positioning, and on the Democratic Party, should Clinton find herself in a brawl with Warrren. I think Clinton would be pulled (uncomfortably) to the left, which might or might not do harm to her prospects in the general. At least the white progressive movement would be badly split, with most of the energy going to Warren.
The business community and the corporate media would marginalize Warren as a lightweight with insufficient experience, and as an unreconstructed liberal from the pre-Reagan Era. On a more even playing field, Warren’s ideas would probably prevail, and the country seems to have swung back to more liberal view in many areas, although trust in government is at historical lows so we shouldn’t delude ourselves that we’re back in 1976. The playing field, however, would not even be close to even. I think Warren could succeed in forcing Clinton to come up with ideas for tackling student debt and a more robust regulatory scheme than she would adopt if left to her own devices. More than that, I doubt Warren could do.
She’d have my vote, though.