Why Hillary is inevitable in the primary (Effortpost inside)

[IceSpear]

I) Fundraising

Myth #1: Hillary was a financial juggernaut in 2007-2008, with Obama running on a shoestring budget.

Fact: Obama outraised her multiple times, occasionally by blowout margins. And this wasn't only towards the end of the primary, he was outraising her as early as Q2 of 2007. There's simply no evidence that Obama had any trouble whatsoever keeping competitive with fundraising, which is a hallmark of a serious candidate.

Now, does anyone seriously believe any of the D-list candidates currently running against her are capable of being competitive with Hillary in fundraising? As I type this, Hillary is raising ungodly amounts of money from the Democratic donor class, which this time is nearly unanimously behind her (more on this point later.) Meanwhile, O'Malley, Chafee, and the rest are all dithering in their exploratory committees. That's just making their already inescapable hole even deeper.

Myth #2: Money doesn't mean everything! <insert example here>.

Fact: Yes, there are examples of candidates who got drastically outspent winning. But those are the exceptions that prove the rule. Most of the time, the better funded candidate wins. And even in cases where the candidate with less money won, they still usually had enough to at least stay competitive. That will not be so this time. Hillary is going to completely demolish the competition in terms of fundraising. It will not be remotely close.

II) Establishment Support

Myth #3: The Democratic establishment overwhelmingly backed Hillary in 2007, just like they're doing now.

Fact: The Democratic establishment was in no way united behind Hillary. Not only is this clear from the fundraising figures above, it is also clear from endorsements. In case you guys forgot, Ted Kennedy was a huge backer of Obama. Many other Democratic politicians backed him as well. Hillary had more endorsements overall, but it was not anything close to unanimous. As for Hillary, at this point in 2007 she had the support of a single Senator. This time she has the support of 27 Senators before she even declared her campaign, more than a majority of the Democratic caucus. Yeah, #Hillaryover50. As for her "competition", they have nothing. In Maryland, both Senators have endorsed Hillary. Same for the Senators and Governors in Virginia and Rhode Island. Sanders' Senate colleague has endorsed Hillary. If none of these people can win endorsements from high ranking politicians in their home states, where exactly are they going to do so?

III) Polling

Myth #4: Hillary was polling just as strong/almost as strong in 2007/2008 as she was now.

Fact: Hillary's poll numbers aren't even in the same universe now as they were in 2007/2008. I will illustrate using the RCP averages.

(For the purposes of this thread, I will be ignoring Elizabeth Warren's support since she is clearly not running. Some might scoff at this, but if anything it's TOO generous to the non Hillary candidates, since three separate pollsters (Marist, CNN, and YouGov) have all confirmed that Hillary actually gains the most when Warren is excluded. Not surprising when you consider the gender factor. However, since I have no way of knowing what the actual breakdown is, I will simply ignore it entirely.)

National, April 16th 2007: Clinton +9
National, April 16th 2015: Clinton +48
Swing: Clinton +39

Iowa, April 16th 2007: Edwards +3 (!)
Iowa, April 16th 2015: Clinton +48
Swing: Clinton +51

New Hampshire, April 16th 2007: Clinton +8
New Hampshire, April 16th, 2015: Clinton +44
Swing: Clinton +36

South Carolina, April 16th 2007: Clinton +7
South Carolina, April 16th 2015: Clinton +43
Swing: Clinton +36

The numbers speak for themselves. You're either insane or willfully ignorant if you think Hillary's numbers in the 2008 cycle are anywhere near what they are now.

Myth #5: Okay, Hillary leads by a huge margin, but it's only because of name recognition.

Fact: Name recognition is a part of her leads, but it can't explain them away, or even greatly reduce them for that matter. If it's only because of name recognition, why is she crushing Biden everywhere who has name recognition just as high? If it's only because of name recognition, why is she demolishing Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, Andrew Cuomo, Mark Warner, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Russ Feingold, etc. in their home states when most Democrats in those states know who they are and like them? Hell, she even stomps Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, and I would consider her a viable opponent against Hillary.

Myth #6: Okay, people are polling horribly now, but they can come out of nowhere just like Obama did.

Fact: Obama did not "come out of nowhere." He was widely talked up as a potential candidate after his 2004 DNC speech. And the fundraising figures and polling numbers show he did not begin as a nonentity once he entered the race either. He immediately gathered a solid base of support (both among the electorate and donor base), unlike the clique of literal 1%ers currently running against Hillary. Just see for yourself how high he was polling even in the early stages of the race through those links from earlier.

IV) Miscellaneous

Myth #7: Well, Hillary got destroyed in 2008, so she's clearly vulnerable anyway

Fact: No, it was actually the closest presidential primary campaign in history, and she arguably won the popular vote. And this was against a stellar candidate like Obama. Considering that, what exactly can Lincoln Chafee do against a FAR stronger Hillary?

Myth #8: She was inevitable in 2008 too!

Fact: This was a retrospective media narrative based off no evidence at the time, simply because "David beats Goliath" sounds a lot more interesting than "strong 2nd place defeats frontrunner", and to simultaneously lionize Obama and bask in the defeat of their hated nemesis Hillary. If you need evidence, read this. The author went back and delved into news stories from 2007-2008, and references to Hillary's "inevitability" were very thin, particularly after Obama entered the race. It's simply not based in reality.

However, even if they did describe her that way, that would simply reflect the idiocy of the media rather than showing anything about Hillary, because of the polling numbers above. How exactly would someone leading by mere single digits nationally and in NH/SC, but TRAILING in Iowa be "inevitable"? The answer is that they wouldn't be, and anyone who described them that way is literally retarded. But again, very few people did.

Myth #9: But Democrats/liberals/progressives/the left/the base/minorities hate Hillary!

Fact: No, they actually all love her. Read the crosstabs of any Hillary favorability poll for proof. I'm sorry, but your personal hatred of Hillary Clinton does not speak for the entire Democratic Party, as much as you wish it to be so. As for minorities, a little noticed fact is that African Americans are one of her strongest core groups of support now, and she cleaned Obama's clock amongs Hispanics in the 2008 primary, another inconvenient fact that went down the memory hole.

Myth #10: I'm an annoying Hillary hack because I consistently point out stubborn facts

Fact: No, actually most of my detractors are the hacks. All of the empirical evidence is on my side, while all the anti-Hillary hacks have is their own wishful thinking.

V) Conclusion

Hillary is inevitable. Get over it.

[Türkisblau]

but I said that GURANTEE THAT HILLARY WILL LOSE!!!

*plugs ears and assumes fetal position in the corner of the room*

[Türkisblau]

[BaconBacon96]

I agree completely IceSpear. Nonetheless, people will still find a way to deny what is obvious.

[Simfan34]

The point of this is?

[Beet]

Excellent post, IceSpear. The case for Hill dog's victory is indeed strong.

[Maxwell]

Reported for spamming the forum. You are arguing with NOBODY.

And I didn't even read whatever points you made (which I assume are the same points you make in every post), I just had to read the title to know it's insufferable.

[Lief 🗽]

Myth #9: But Democrats/liberals/progressives/the left/the base/minorities hate Hillary!

Fact: No, they actually all love her. Read the crosstabs of any Hillary favorability poll for proof. I'm sorry, but your personal hatred of Hillary Clinton does not speak for the entire Democratic Party, as much as you wish it to be so. As for minorities, a little noticed fact is that African Americans are one of her strongest core groups of support now, and she cleaned Obama's clock amongs Hispanics in the 2008 primary, another inconvenient fact that went down the memory hole.

QFT

Clinton is the progressive choice in 2016. Any challenger to her will be attacking her from the right (like white rights champion Jim Webb).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

When will the people learn that polls, at this stage, are meaningless?

That's something the Atlas Forum posted should have known already.

[Lief 🗽]

When will the people learn that polls, at this stage, are meaningless?

No, they're not. Not when you're leading by >50 points. Also this post is about a lot more than polls. Do you people even read things before you post your reflexive anti-Hillary hack posts?

[bedstuy]

Exactly.  As a fellow Hillary Clinton hack, I agree with your points.  But, you might be beating a dead horse.  Or, in the case of Wulfric or IndyRep, you're beating a stupid horse.

[Sewer]

The fact you felt the need to waste your time writing this... You're scared, aren't you? You seem panicked. You spend more time attacking everyone to the left than you do the Republicans. You hold a deep HATRED of the other Democratic candidates. Why would you act so worried... If you didn't think she could lose?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

When will the people learn that polls, at this stage, are meaningless?

No, they're not. Not when you're leading by >50 points. Also this post is about a lot more than polls. Do you people even read things before you post your reflexive anti-Hillary hack posts?

The real campaign hasn't even begun, so these polls are extremely preliminary. You're under assumption that everybody indicating willingness to vote for Hillary now (before anybody else started campaigning) is set in stone. But politics doesn't work that way. It's dynamic to unpredictability. Remember Dukakis leading until summer by double digits just to lose by landslide in November... yeah, you say "but he wasn't leading by 50%", but leading by double digits before an election is a stronger thing than speculative polls with more than a year away. Remember state-by-state polls in 2007, showing that if faces by Obama, McCain would win in all states except IL, HI and MA? Remember all the recent races lost despite a candidate being supposed to win, both primary and general? Assuming that everything stays the same between now and the primaries, not to mention GE, is careless at best.

The only way Hillary may be inevitable, is because many potential opponents may not enter at all (which doesn't seems unlikely), not because of early polling.

Of course I agree Hillary is very close to achieve her goal, but she must actually do some work to keep things going.

[Beet]

kal sort of has a point, too. Anyone who lived through Howard Dean's Joe Trippi/Meetup.com summer 2003 campaign, capped up with a baseball-bat themed "September to Remember" fundraising drive, and then endorsements from SEIU and AFSCME, where he almost literally came out of nowhere in April to a commanding lead in the New Hampshire primary -- only to see it all collapse within weeks, will always be impressed with the volatility of polls. Not to mention Hillary's own turnaround from a 30-37 (and worse) deficit the Saturday before the New Hampshire primary to a 3-point victory.

[King]

There's a big assumption Kalwejt and others are taking in that Hillary will continue to fall now that she's campaigning. It's more likely that this is her floor.

Hillary is not bad at this politics thing. She lost in Iowa but came back to win New Hampshire and came back and fought through all 50 states. She simply got out muscled by an Obama who was even better at it. If Obama hadn't existed, most likely scenario is that she would have mopped the floor with Edwards and Co then beat McCain by a similar margin in the general.

The idea that saying Hillary is vulnerable is "combating the hacks" is wrong. The idea that every stage of a Presidential election must be competitive is the hackish idea. Noting Hillary is a lock to be the Democratic nominee and likely the next President is the factual evidence. Anyone without any bias about this race, who opens up the polls and information about the 2016 race without prior judgement, would determine Hillary will win. Only people who have the agenda of looking for the conclusion that she will not win say otherwise.

[MT Treasurer]

Noting Hillary is a lock to be the Democratic nominee and likely the next President is the factual evidence. Anyone without any bias about this race, who opens up the polls and information about the 2016 race without prior judgement, would determine Hillary will win. Only people who have the agenda of looking for the conclusion that she will not win say otherwise.

I know you hate the Republican candidates and probably the Republican party in general, but even you have to admit that there is a SMALL chance (like 10%) that she could lose in 2016. Are you a totally deluded Hillary hack? What is this evidence you are talking about? Why do you think polls this early do mean anything? And people who say that the 2016 election will be competitive are biased and anti-Hillary hacks? Seriously?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There's a big assumption Kalwejt and others are taking in that Hillary will continue to fall now that she's campaigning. It's more likely that this is her floor.

Hillary is not bad at this politics thing. She lost in Iowa but came back to win New Hampshire and came back and fought through all 50 states. She simply got out muscled by an Obama who was even better at it. If Obama hadn't existed, most likely scenario is that she would have mopped the floor with Edwards and Co then beat McCain by a similar margin in the general.

The idea that saying Hillary is vulnerable is "combating the hacks" is wrong. The idea that every stage of a Presidential election must be competitive is the hackish idea. Noting Hillary is a lock to be the Democratic nominee and likely the next President is the factual evidence. Anyone without any bias about this race, who opens up the polls and information about the 2016 race without prior judgement, would determine Hillary will win. Only people who have the agenda of looking for the conclusion that she will not win say otherwise.

No. The whole point is that nothing is set in stone. To say she'll "inevitably" fall now that she's campaigning is equally naive as to claim she's already "the nominee".

I'm the first to admit Hillary's heavily favored and I wouldn't gamble any money on the possibility of her losing the nomination. But a lot of people seems to forget there's always an unpredictable factor. And I"m amazed anyone familiar with the recent U.S. political history can discount it. It's still April 2015, people.

[bedstuy]

There's a big assumption Kalwejt and others are taking in that Hillary will continue to fall now that she's campaigning. It's more likely that this is her floor.

Hillary is not bad at this politics thing. She lost in Iowa but came back to win New Hampshire and came back and fought through all 50 states. She simply got out muscled by an Obama who was even better at it. If Obama hadn't existed, most likely scenario is that she would have mopped the floor with Edwards and Co then beat McCain by a similar margin in the general.

The idea that saying Hillary is vulnerable is "combating the hacks" is wrong. The idea that every stage of a Presidential election must be competitive is the hackish idea. Noting Hillary is a lock to be the Democratic nominee and likely the next President is the factual evidence. Anyone without any bias about this race, who opens up the polls and information about the 2016 race without prior judgement, would determine Hillary will win. Only people who have the agenda of looking for the conclusion that she will not win say otherwise.

No. The whole point is that nothing is set in stone. To say she'll "inevitably" fall now that she's campaigning is equally naive as to claim she's already "the nominee".

I'm the first to admit Hillary's heavily favored and I wouldn't gamble any money on the possibility of her losing the nomination. But a lot of people seems to forget there's always an unpredictable factor. And I"m amazed anyone familiar with the recent U.S. political history can discount it. It's still April 2015, people.

Here's the thing though, if Hillary Clinton loses the nomination, someone else would have to win.  I can imagine Hillary Clinton losing, but there are no other candidates on her level in 2016.

[King]

Noting Hillary is a lock to be the Democratic nominee and likely the next President is the factual evidence. Anyone without any bias about this race, who opens up the polls and information about the 2016 race without prior judgement, would determine Hillary will win. Only people who have the agenda of looking for the conclusion that she will not win say otherwise.

I know you hate the Republican candidates and probably the Republican party in general, but even you have to admit that there is a SMALL chance (like 10%) that she could lose in 2016. Are you a totally deluded Hillary hack? What is this evidence you are talking about? Why do you think polls this early do mean anything? And people who say that the 2016 election will be competitive are biased and anti-Hillary hacks? Seriously?

Let's take polls out of it.

Who has the financial advantage (keep in mind all the GOP candidates will have to spend more in 2015 and the primaries)? Hillary Clinton
Who has the structural advantage (most base safe EVs to start)? Hillary Clinton, 253 EVs solid
Who has the most beloved brand name? Clinton
Who has the best surrogates (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren versus Mitt Romney... John McCain... George W. Bush... uh)? Hillary Clinton
Who has the more popular stance on potential major 2016 issues like minimum wage and SS/Medicare? Hillary Clinton
Does the GOP have any room to grow in white vote from 2012? No.
Does the GOP have any path to significant growth (at least a 20 point swing) in Hispanic or Black vote in 2016? No.
Can Scott Walker beat her in Florida? No. (That's 270)
Can Jeb Bush beat her in Ohio? No. (That's 270)
Can Rand Paul beat hear in Virginia? No. (That's 270)
Can Ted Cruz beat her in any swing state? No. (That's 270)

There's no path to 270 anywhere on the map for any GOP contender. Each one of them falls short in a critical swing state. The GOP is in a bad position. They have to SWEEP the swing states to win. They have less than 200 safe/solid EVs. This is impossible to win on.

In 2004, George W. Bush had Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado locked in base. He only had to go on offense for Ohio or IA/NM/NV to win.

The resources are stretched too thin. The candidate would have to twist and pander too much.

[SWE]

The point of this is?

I guess IceSpear is worried we haven't read every single other post he's made

[Mr. Reactionary]

It is inevitable that Dewey will beat Truman in 1948. I mean, the Democratic Party has split into 3 different factions.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

IndyRep has a point. I feel like sometimes we're getting too fixated on pure electoral geography to remember the dynamic factor of politics.

Democrats has an advantage in the electoral college map, like Republicans had it before. It makes things harder for the GOP doesn't make it impossible.

[IceSpear]

The point of this is?

Why not?

Reported for spamming the forum. You are arguing with NOBODY.

And I didn't even read whatever points you made (which I assume are the same points you mak in every post), I just had to read the title to know it's insufferable.

LOL. So everyone accepts Hillary is inevitable then? Wow, that's news to me. And it's not surprising you didn't read it. Refer to myth #10.

The fact you felt the need to waste your time writing this... You're scared, aren't you? You seem panicked. You spend more time attacking everyone to the left than you do the Republicans. You hold a deep HATRED of the other Democratic candidates. Why would you act so worried... If you didn't think she could lose?

Oh yes, you caught me. I mostly made it because a) I was bored, b) I said I would a while ago, and c) so I can refer back to it rather than have to repeat myself everytime someone makes a dumb uninformed post. I notice you addressed none of the actual points, most likely because you can't, just like every other anti-Hillary hack. Big shock.

The real campaign hasn't even begun, so these polls are extremely preliminary. You're under assumption that everybody indicating willingness to vote for Hillary now (before anybody else started campaigning) is set in stone. But politics doesn't work that way. It's dynamic to unpredictability. Remember Dukakis leading until summer by double digits just to lose by landslide in November... yeah, you say "but he wasn't leading by 50%", but leading by double digits before an election is a stronger thing than speculative polls with more than a year away. Remember state-by-state polls in 2007, showing that if faces by Obama, McCain would win in all states except IL, HI and MA? Remember all the recent races lost despite a candidate being supposed to win, both primary and general? Assuming that everything stays the same between now and the primaries, not to mention GE, is careless at best.

The only way Hillary may be inevitable, is because many potential opponents may not enter at all (which doesn't seems unlikely), not because of early polling.

Of course I agree Hillary is very close to achieve her goal, but she must actually do some work to keep things going.

The campaign started immediately after the midterms, if not earlier. This isn't the UK where our election seasons last 2 months, people have been laying the groundwork for quite a while. It's the invisible primary. Who said all the people saying they'd vote for Hillary is set in stone? She's ahead by HUGE margins. She can afford to lose massive amounts of support yet still win in a landslide. And no legitimate candidates are entering, which is exactly the point. Warren is the only candidate I see with both the stature and fundraising capability that would be able to take on Hillary, and she's not running. And with her exit and Hillary's entrance, Hillary became the nominee. Plus, you have to consider the other aspects I outlined in my post. None of these candidates are capable of giving Hillary a serious competition in any way, shape, or form. Obama clearly WAS capable of doing so from the very beginning.

I'm the first to admit Hillary's heavily favored and I wouldn't gamble any money on the possibility of her losing the nomination. But a lot of people seems to forget there's always an unpredictable factor. And I"m amazed anyone familiar with the recent U.S. political history can discount it. It's still April 2015, people.

Nothing is ever completely certain. But it's about as certain as saying James Lankford or Chuck Schumer will be re-elected, which most people have no problem doing.

I guess IceSpear is worried we haven't read every single other post he's made

I may have made these points spread across quite a large number of posts over a large amount of time, but now they're conveniently all gathered in one thread. That's handy. Anyway, it's not surprising you guys are trying to make this about me. See myth #10 (again).

[Mechaman]

At least on my end the problem was never that Clinton could win but merely that she is a horrible person who should never ever get close to the Oval Office ever again.  I believe that is what a lot of us "anti-Hillary hacks" believe.

So yes, good job IceSpear.  You successfully rebutted "myths" that very few of us have actually made.

[King]

Best-case scenario for Paul: He wins 292-246. And yes, I think he could make PA competitive (not kidding).

Rubio wins 274-264 (he loses VA narrowly).

Maybe Paul, but I don't see how he wins the nomination. The % chance he has of winning the general x the % chance he has of winning the nomination mean his odds of winning the election microscopic.

I have no clue how you could give any of those states to Rubio.

Mitt Romney won 61% of the white vote, a landslide not seen since Reagan.   The only direction it has to go is down. The Republican Party is making no attempts at inroads with Blacks, Hispanics, or Asians (Paul has, but again, he's not winning the nomination). Where are these voters to flip these states are going to come from?

Those states will be close because the GOP has a large floor of support, but there's nothing to suggest the Republican ceiling isn't below 50% in all of them with a Presidential electorate.

It's easy to press a button on the EV calculator and say Pennsylvania will vote for Rand Paul. People were able to press buttons in 2012 to give the election to Mitt Romney. But who are these people that are going to vote for Rand? It's not going to be any new whites. Any white person who didn't vote against Obama has no reason to vote against Clinton. He might do better with black voters, but he'd need to seriously flip about a third of them. Hispanic votes are not significant in the state.