Why was the Democratic establishment so united behind Clinton in the beginning?

[The Mikado]

Remember that one of Clinton's key advantages (especially compared to 2008) was the near-unanimous support among African-Americans, a key part of the Democratic coalition and basically the cornerstone of the party. Black support is the difference between Obama narrowly beating Clinton and Clinton comfortably beating Sanders 8 years later.

[uti2]

Remember that one of Clinton's key advantages (especially compared to 2008) was the near-unanimous support among African-Americans, a key part of the Democratic coalition and basically the cornerstone of the party. Black support is the difference between Obama narrowly beating Clinton and Clinton comfortably beating Sanders 8 years later.

Biden would've split AA support with Clinton if he had Obama's backing. Obama didn't want to have a brutal primary fight, so he just let Hillary have it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Again, it was the Senate candidates in PA: McGinty, OH Strickland, and IN Bayh, that help sank Clinton.  If Sestak would have won the primary against McGinty things would have been alot different.  And Tim Ryan in Ohio

McGinty, Strickland, Bayh and Clinton were thought to be invincible because of the Black vote.  But, the Bernie Sanders vote didn't support the Senate candidates and supporting 3rd party candidates instead.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Being on the Clintons' enemies list is not conducive for career advancement.

[uti2]

Again, it was the Senate candidates in PA: McGinty, OH Strickland, and IN Bayh, that help sank Clinton.  If Sestak would have won the primary against McGinty things would have been alot different.  And Tim Ryan in Ohio

McGinty, Strickland, Bayh and Clinton were thought to be invincible because of the Black vote.  But, the Bernie Sanders vote didn't support the Senate candidates and supporting 3rd party candidates instead.

Bernie supporters didn't show up for Feingold, the reason for why they didn't show up is due to Clinton. Clinton intentionally courted republicans at the expense of the democratic downballot. She was counting on anti-trump republicans, since WI voted against Trump in the primary, she thought it would be o.k. to rely on them. Comey ruined that strategy and brought republicans back home.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137093/clinton-campaign-decision-made-may-doom-down-ballot-democrats

[Mister Mets]

There were a few factors.

- She had support from multiple segments. She was the clear favorite of her husband's affiliates. She served in the Obama administration. Middle-aged feminists had loved her since the early 90s and saw her as the first female President. She had sewn up New York's fundraisers, and gotten to know the others for decades.

- Democrats have started focusing on identity politics, and they really wanted to nominate a woman after the last big milestone (Obama.) She was the most obvious choice.

- Because no one else had such wide support, it would discourage serious opponents. Biden might fight her for the Obama supporters, but there would still be the Clinton folks/ New York fundrasiers. Gilibrand might fight her for the feminists and New York fundraisers, but she'd be some of their second choice, and there would be still be the White House connections from two administrations.

- They bought into the "it's her turn" narrative, and wanted to reward her for supporting Obama after a tough primary. It's tough for Democrats to argue the point of rewarding the next in line when women and minorities have risen to that position.

- These advantages led to a feedback loop. She was so well-positioned, so she had a lot of support, which made her better-positioned which gave her more support.

- Because she was seen as a frontrunner, people wanted to be on her side, and didn't want to be seen as going against her. Part of that is a desire to back the winner, although the Clintons also have a reputation for pettiness.

[Alabama_Indy10]

She has been the chosen one for years.

[TheSaint250]

She has been the chosen one for years.

This. Also, she was pretty much considered unstoppable. Only recently have people been more vocal about her being a bad candidate from the start.

[publicunofficial]

It's worth pointing out that the Clintons have been going around campaigning and fundraising for party figures for literally a quarter of a century and had built up quite a library of favors from party figures from top to bottom. The Clintons had been there for a large variety of figures and they ended up there for the Clintons.

This is neither a defense nor a criticism. Politicians who take care of their allies get taken care of in return, and the Clintons had been building up favors since before Bill was even President and never stopped doing so.

Basically this, a huge amount of the Democratic establishment are people who in some way owe the careers to the Clintons (My Congressman, Derek Kilmer, is a Bill Clinton protege for example). 

[All Along The Watchtower]

It's kind of remarkable how much influence the Clintons have over the Democratic Party given that they've been terrible party builders (in the sense that Democrats have basically been shut out of significant sections of the country - at most if not all levels of government, which has only accelerated in the Obama years - in the same era in which Clinton-style "Third Way" politics has ascended and been institutionalized within the party).

While correlation is not causation, there is a disturbingly close overlap in the time periods here. I'll leave you all to draw your own conclusions.

[Averroës Nix]

I don't think that it's fair to hold the Clintons accountable for the poor state of the Democratic Party as of 2016-2017. That is a more recent failing. The Democratic Party did not have the kind of wide-ranging organizational problems that now appear uniquely severe until within the past decade, and when the Clintons were in elected office they were extremely diligent about supporting Democrats at the state and county level in whatever ways they could, from personal appearances, to organizational support, to fundraising.

[PoliticalShelter]

Yeah The democrats only really began to collapse outside of their blue enclaves over the Obama years, the party was remained strong in the rural Midwest and the south throughout the Clinton presidency.

If anything it seems the democrats collapse throughout much of the country has less to do with the embrace of third way economics and more to do with the party fully embracing cultural liberalism, which is more to do with Obama than the Clintons.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I don't think that it's fair to hold the Clintons accountable for the poor state of the Democratic Party as of 2016-2017. That is a more recent failing. The Democratic Party did not have the kind of wide-ranging organizational problems that now appear uniquely severe until within the past decade, and when the Clintons were in elected office they were extremely diligent about supporting Democrats at the state and county level in whatever ways they could, from personal appearances, to organizational support, to fundraising.

True, true.

Speaking of this topic:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/opinions/hillary-clinton-has-a-point-louis/index.html

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Hillary was inevitable.

[twenty42]

She was also a good sacrificial lamb for what looked like it would be a bad year for Dems. The party was in bad shape in 2014 and 2015, and the conventional wisdom was that the GOP would take back the White House after two terms of Obama. Making sure she was nominated in 2016 would get her out of the way and open the party up to their next generation in 2020 and beyond.

She draws a lot of comparisons to Bob Dole and John McCain. All three had lost primary bids and then got nominated eight years later, with conditions favorable to the opposite party.

[super6646]

I really doubt that. The democrats thought she was going to win, why else would they nominate her and put so much support behind her. Why run a great campaign if you are a "sacrifical lamb"?

Back to the OP, I really don't think they wanted another outsider. Obama's win was an upset for the democrats, and he ultimately ended up being a disaster down-ballet. In his 8 years, they lost the senate, the house, the majority of governorships, and many state state legislatures. While he could do great during election years, he simply couldn't appeal to voters during midterms and at the state level, which really ruined the democrats ability to pass legislation.

So my hypothesis is that the reason they didn't support Sanders (or any other outsider) is because they thought Hillary could stop the bleeding. Of course, thats rediculous. Hillary was not the same as Hillary 2008 - no longer a centrist, and no longer for the working class. She tried not to bring up the issues, and deflect with "trump is bad". I guarentee you, the time Hillary would have in office would bring about a disaster in terms of their performance down-ballet, and I think there could've a good chance the party would no longer be seen as a contendor in any part of government except for the white house if Hillary lasted 8 years as president.

[twenty42]

Back to the OP, I really don't think they wanted another outsider. Obama's win was an upset for the democrats, and he ultimately ended up being a disaster down-ballet. In his 8 years, they lost the senate, the house, the majority of governorships, and many state state legislatures. While he could do great during election years, he simply couldn't appeal to voters during midterms and at the state level, which really ruined the democrats ability to pass legislation.

I don't think Obama, or his presence, ever really resonated with voters after 2008. The Republican landslides in 2010 and 2014 speak for themselves, but it's seldom acknowledged that the popular vote in 2012 swung Republican by almost 3.5 points. Democrats had a MASSIVE advantage in the EC in 2012, which made Obama's win look more decisive than it was.

[Kingpoleon]

Because it was widely believed that Clinton was a very good candidate and seemed to possess high approval numbers throughout 2013/2014. Also when she got behind the Obama campaign in 2008, it was widely believed by most that in return for an Undivided party, Hillary was to be a shoe in for the 2016 democrat presidential nominee.

She was basically seen as being on par with Biden, meaning that taking on the risk of a 3-way race between 2 centrists and 1 leftist resulting in the leftist winning was unnecessary. If Obama had appointed a Democratic FBI director, and the email investigation was quickly completed, that may have been the case. Instead, he appointed a showman who dragged the investigation out as long as possible and got manipulated by a forged russian document to interfere in the middle of the election.

James Comey is a great man, almost certainly more so than you. Just because someone supports justice equally under the law doesn't make them a showman. Until 2016, Comey was decidedly non-controversial. He didn't want attention - the media forced it on him. He did as few press conferences as possible and kept them all as low key as possible.