Are Democrats in trouble if Hillary's campaign collapses?

[Mister Mets]

A specific argument I've heard is that the lack of serious opposition for Hillary means that the Democratic party would be a in a very bad position if her campaign were to collapse for whatever reason.

You could argue that Hillary does have legitimate opposition. If the likes of Webb, O'Malley, Sanders and Chafee had challenged Gore, it would have been a big deal. Instead, Gore only faced Bill Bradley. But I get the counterpoint that an elderly man who had been one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, a failed Governor whose unpopularity gave him a Republican successor in Maryland, a 70-something socialist, and a former Republican officeholder whose stints as Senator and Governor ended unsuccessfully are not going to be Democratic nominees for President no matter what.

Hillary's advantages are so significant that the people who might win the nomination in a race without her aren't going to try. My guess had been that if something happens to Hillary, Democrats would just find someone else, so there'd be a functional nominee in 2016. As that individual wouldn't have a shot against Hillary, they're not going to bother now, since the only they'd win is if Hillary drops out.

On a 538 podcast there was a point that if Hillary exits the race, that's going to dominate political conversation for months, which could prevent a Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Amy Klobuchar, John Hickenlooper or Kirsten Gilibrand from being able to get their message out. Although that neglects the length of the primary process.

Now I'm conflicted. Does the lack of a credible opponent to Hillary Clinton mean Democrats are in trouble if she's unable to campaign? Or is it a moot point since they'd still have a credible nominee in 2016? There are also more nuanced answers. Does the lack of a credible alternative to Hillary mean weaker candidates (Biden, Cuomo, De Blasio) have a shot at the nomination without Hillary in the race?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Biden has new life, and should take heart if he wants to run.

I am not convinced that HRC is inevitable, mainly because of her personal negatives, which are very real.  If she starts polling poorly vs. GOP frontrunners, credible opposition will arise, and this is far from unlikely, IMO

[CountryClassSF]

Yes.  Midterm wipeouts destroyed their bench.

[Ebsy]

I'm pretty sure any political party would be in trouble if their campaign collapsed.

[Free Bird]

Yes.  Midterm wipeouts destroyed their bench.

[cinyc]

I'm pretty sure any political party would be in trouble if their campaign collapsed.

After the conventions, sure.  But before the conventions?  The Republicans wouldn't be in trouble if whoever the front runner of the day's campaign collapsed.  If Rubio or Bush or whoever is forced out because their campaign collapsed, there are other viable candidates. 

That's not true on the Democratic side.  I can't see an unrepentant socialist or the failed governor of a very blue state winning the 2016 Presidential Election.

[Ebsy]

I find the argument that the Democratic bench is somehow empty sort of laughable. 44 Senators and 18 Governors and somehow the party has no one at all to recruit to run for President.

[Xing]

Depends on when. If it collapses some time this year, Democrats can recover. If it happens in March 2016 or later, though...

[Landslide Lyndon]

I find the argument that the Democratic bench is somehow empty sort of laughable. 44 Senators and 18 Governors and somehow the party has no one at all to recruit to run for President.

Yeah, Ezra Klein wrote an article a couple of months ago about how ridiculous this whole notion of a "weak Democratic bench" is. The fact that Hillary's presence kept away most viable candidates doesn't mean that they don't exist.

[Mister Mets]

I find the argument that the Democratic bench is somehow empty sort of laughable. 44 Senators and 18 Governors and somehow the party has no one at all to recruit to run for President.

A party does only need one candidate on the top of the ticket.

Although there could be the argument that a rushed primary might allow a weaker candidate to be nominated.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Depends on when. If it collapses this year, they'll just trot out Gillibrand and use her as a Hillary surrogate.

[King]

Why are people acting like lack of serious primary opposition is a rare thing? Did Obama collapse in 2012? Bush in 2004?

They were incumbents, sure, but they still were living breathing people with campaigns to run going unopposed in the primary with nobody else to take their place.  It happens all the time without incident. This campaign collapse concern trolling is garbage.

What I want to know is what are the issues (not scandals) that the GOP can beat Hillary Clinton on? There's still great avoidance by the Republicans what they actually want to do with the White House. Hell, they haven't even reached a consensus with what they want to do with Congress. For all the talk of sending Obama a message, he's only had one bill hit his desk to veto. There's more infighting than anything.

[Mr. Illini]

It would certainly make things a lot more difficult. Clinton's got a great organization going that give Dems a boost.

[bobloblaw]

Which is why no outrage or level of corruption will dissuade them from supporting her. They may be able to drag her over the finish line in Nov 2016, but the result for the Dem party will be oblivion. By 2020, the Dem party will be so deep in the hole as to be almost nonexistent at the state and local level.

Fact is the Dems never recovered from the 1994 debacle that Hillary was partially responsible for. From 1994-2016, the Dems have controlled the House 4/22 years. Libs will scream "GERRYMANDERING" but you cant gerrymander if you dont control the Govs mansion and state legislatures, which is another gift to the GOP from 1994.

[IceSpear]

I'm pretty sure any political party would be in trouble if their campaign collapsed.

[Thunderbird is the word]

The problem I think has been people treating Hillary as if she's an incumbent when she isn't.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Which is why no outrage or level of corruption will dissuade them from supporting her. They may be able to drag her over the finish line in Nov 2016, but the result for the Dem party will be oblivion. By 2020, the Dem party will be so deep in the hole as to be almost nonexistent at the state and local level.

Fact is the Dems never recovered from the 1994 debacle that Hillary was partially responsible for. From 1994-2016, the Dems have controlled the House 4/22 years. Libs will scream "GERRYMANDERING" but you cant gerrymander if you dont control the Govs mansion and state legislatures, which is another gift to the GOP from 1994.

Which election do you think is worse for the Dems 1980 or 1994, I think 1980

[bobloblaw]

Which is why no outrage or level of corruption will dissuade them from supporting her. They may be able to drag her over the finish line in Nov 2016, but the result for the Dem party will be oblivion. By 2020, the Dem party will be so deep in the hole as to be almost nonexistent at the state and local level.

Fact is the Dems never recovered from the 1994 debacle that Hillary was partially responsible for. From 1994-2016, the Dems have controlled the House 4/22 years. Libs will scream "GERRYMANDERING" but you cant gerrymander if you dont control the Govs mansion and state legislatures, which is another gift to the GOP from 1994.

Which election do you think is worse for the Dems 1980 or 1994, I think 1980

The depth of 1994 was worse. 1980 the Dems held the House and didnt do that poorly at the state level. In 1980 there were lots of ticket splitting Dems. 1994 was broad and deep. After 1982 and 1986, the Dems were in strong shape.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Which is why no outrage or level of corruption will dissuade them from supporting her. They may be able to drag her over the finish line in Nov 2016, but the result for the Dem party will be oblivion. By 2020, the Dem party will be so deep in the hole as to be almost nonexistent at the state and local level.

Fact is the Dems never recovered from the 1994 debacle that Hillary was partially responsible for. From 1994-2016, the Dems have controlled the House 4/22 years. Libs will scream "GERRYMANDERING" but you cant gerrymander if you dont control the Govs mansion and state legislatures, which is another gift to the GOP from 1994.

Which election do you think is worse for the Dems 1980 or 1994, I think 1980

The depth of 1994 was worse. 1980 the Dems held the House and didnt do that poorly at the state level. In 1980 there were lots of ticket splitting Dems. 1994 was broad and deep. After 1982 and 1986, the Dems were in strong shape.

1994 made Clinton more Conservative then Reagan so you can say that 1994 was worse for liberals

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Depends when it happens, if it happened in a month or two it'd be great since stronger Democrats would likely hop in and have time to assemble a national campaign apparatus, so it'd improve the party's chances if it happens early enough.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Which is why no outrage or level of corruption will dissuade them from supporting her. They may be able to drag her over the finish line in Nov 2016, but the result for the Dem party will be oblivion. By 2020, the Dem party will be so deep in the hole as to be almost nonexistent at the state and local level.

Fact is the Dems never recovered from the 1994 debacle that Hillary was partially responsible for. From 1994-2016, the Dems have controlled the House 4/22 years. Libs will scream "GERRYMANDERING" but you cant gerrymander if you dont control the Govs mansion and state legislatures, which is another gift to the GOP from 1994.

Which election do you think is worse for the Dems 1980 or 1994, I think 1980

The depth of 1994 was worse. 1980 the Dems held the House and didnt do that poorly at the state level. In 1980 there were lots of ticket splitting Dems. 1994 was broad and deep. After 1982 and 1986, the Dems were in strong shape.

1994 made Clinton more Conservative then Reagan so you can say that 1994 was worse for liberals

It's a bit unfair to blame Hillary for 1994.  The 1994 Democratic meltdown occurred for several reasons that were predictable.  

In the 1996 ALMANAC OF AMERICAN POLITICS, Michael Barone stated what should have been obvious; that for decades, the vast majority of Americans had casting their Congressional votes for either Republicans or for Democrats who claimed to be moderates or conservatives, yet in every Congress, liberal legislation would prevail by narrow margins.  This could be obscured somewhat by the presence of Republicans as President, but the Clinton Administration brought this out into the open.  It finally dawned on people that their moderate or conservative Democratic Representative or Senator would be casting key liberal votes to get a tough bill through.  Mike Huckabee wasn't entirely wrong when he said of the 1992 Dale Bumpers:  "He talks cornbread and catfish back in Arkansas, but he votes Kennedy and Cranston up in Washington!".  That realization, coupled with redistricting in the South to ensure that there were a maximum number of 65% black Congressional Districts left many white Democrats in positions too vulnerable to maintain.

[DS0816]

…

Now I'm conflicted. Does the lack of a credible opponent to Hillary Clinton mean Democrats are in trouble if she's unable to campaign?…

Please present a list of all potential Republican and Democratic presidential candidates and tell us exactly how each one is or is not electable.

[bobloblaw]

Which is why no outrage or level of corruption will dissuade them from supporting her. They may be able to drag her over the finish line in Nov 2016, but the result for the Dem party will be oblivion. By 2020, the Dem party will be so deep in the hole as to be almost nonexistent at the state and local level.

Fact is the Dems never recovered from the 1994 debacle that Hillary was partially responsible for. From 1994-2016, the Dems have controlled the House 4/22 years. Libs will scream "GERRYMANDERING" but you cant gerrymander if you dont control the Govs mansion and state legislatures, which is another gift to the GOP from 1994.

Which election do you think is worse for the Dems 1980 or 1994, I think 1980

The depth of 1994 was worse. 1980 the Dems held the House and didnt do that poorly at the state level. In 1980 there were lots of ticket splitting Dems. 1994 was broad and deep. After 1982 and 1986, the Dems were in strong shape.

1994 made Clinton more Conservative then Reagan so you can say that 1994 was worse for liberals

It's a bit unfair to blame Hillary for 1994.  The 1994 Democratic meltdown occurred for several reasons that were predictable.  

In the 1996 ALMANAC OF AMERICAN POLITICS, Michael Barone stated what should have been obvious; that for decades, the vast majority of Americans had casting their Congressional votes for either Republicans or for Democrats who claimed to be moderates or conservatives, yet in every Congress, liberal legislation would prevail by narrow margins.  This could be obscured somewhat by the presence of Republicans as President, but the Clinton Administration brought this out into the open.  It finally dawned on people that their moderate or conservative Democratic Representative or Senator would be casting key liberal votes to get a tough bill through.  Mike Huckabee wasn't entirely wrong when he said of the 1992 Dale Bumpers:  "He talks cornbread and catfish back in Arkansas, but he votes Kennedy and Cranston up in Washington!".  That realization, coupled with redistricting in the South to ensure that there were a maximum number of 65% black Congressional Districts left many white Democrats in positions too vulnerable to maintain.

I do agree there were many factors, but Hillary trying to ram Hillarycare down the people's throats

[Beet]

The idea that Democrats were going to hold onto Congress forever in light of the Southern GOP realignment is just hilarious.

[Sumner 1868]

The idea that Democrats were going to hold onto Congress forever in light of the Southern GOP realignment is just hilarious.

Probably, but they could have held on through the 1990s and possibly through the 2000s.