http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-inevitability-this-time-is-different.html?abt=0002&abg=0&_r=0"I get it. I remember that Mrs. Clinton was “inevitable,” and I see why today’s discussions of Mrs. Clinton’s strength sound familiar.
But there is no equivalence between Mrs. Clinton’s strength then and now. She was never inevitable eight years ago. If a candidate has ever been inevitable — for the nomination — it is Mrs. Clinton today."
"She leads the person in second place in those polls, Ms. Warren, by more than 40 points, not 15 points. Just as important, her leads in the early states, like Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire, are similar in size.
Even as Mrs. Clinton enters the season in a far better position than eight years ago, her potential opposition is weaker as well. So far, it’s basically nonexistent: As of now, not a single sitting senator, governor or vice president has declared a run. Mr. Biden has made noises about running, but he has no obvious base of support among Democratic donors or voters."
"Perhaps the easiest way to think about Mrs. Clinton’s strength is simply to remember just how close she came to victory in 2008. Despite her vote to authorize the war in Iraq, despite the strength of Mr. Obama’s candidacy, despite a four-to-one disadvantage among black voters, and despite all the miscues of her campaign, Mrs. Clinton still won 48 percent of pledged delegates.
Without these powerful forces working against her, she appears to be far better positioned than she was eight years ago. If she barely lost then, why would she lose now?"
