Talk Elections

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/23/sorry-but-clinton-s-inevitably-is-not-a-problem.html

IceSpear, do you sometimes wonder if you have a bit of an unhealthy "love" of a politician (Clinton)? It may be my libertarian bias and dislike of government in general, but sometimes I think some of y'all worship folks in power too much.

Stop

Thank you libertarians for your insightful commentary on this relevant 2016 article.

Of course she is going to get the nod, but that says more about the Democratic Party than it does about Clinton.

I don't see Hillary running. Obama threw a big bone to Elizibeth Warren in the SOTU speech.

Then why is she assembling a team and choosing her campaign headquarters? Why has Warren not done a single thing to prepare for a campaign <11 months before Iowa?

I don't care either way who the Democratic nominee is, as long as it's not a total crank. Whoever can boost the bottom of the ticket (Senate, House, Governors) the best is best. I live in Utah so I'll just happily chug away and vote Green till the end of time because my presidential vote doesn't matter.

I'm not a libertarian, but I do have a problem with the degree to which Hillary's "inevitability" limits debate within the Democratic Party, particularly over issues like foreign policy (where Hillary is virtually indistinguishable from John McCain). I also find it disturbing that so much of the vitrol from 2008 has just gone down the memory hole and Obama supporters have in a sense learned to love big brother.

Hillary Clinton initiated the Iran talks. John McCain opposes them.

Also, 2008 hasn't been forgotten. People remember how Hillary gave a full throated endorsement of Obama and was a team player at SoS for 4 years after her bitter defeat, and that has built up additional goodwill for her.

Shots fired.

Don't forget state legislatures. :)

Well for one thing, Hillary is not identical to McCain on foreign policy. Secondly, even during the most bitter stages of the 2008 primary, the vast majority of Dems still liked Hillary. They just liked Obama slightly more. And third, is it really a surprise that the Obama people have lined up behind her when she served as his SoS for 4 years?

The concern is that progressives might get complacent if she's coronated before the primaries even begin. 2014 taught us how important turnout is, and we can't just assume turnout will naturally be higher in 2016. Clinton needs to start campaigning long before the GE, and give progressives a reason to turn out and vote. Point to her favorability rating all you like, that doesn't mean people will actually show up to the polls.

The media makes money off there being news, especially online media. If Clinton just walks through the primary, reader interest in the Presidential election will be at an all time low.

Turnout in presidentials vs. midterms is not an Obama only phenomenon. Even when Dems nominated the bland John Kerry turnout was very high, and Dems are way more enthusiastic for Hillary than they were for him.

I'm saying that high turnout (high enough for a Democratic victory) isn't something we can't take for granted. Even if Hillary is well-liked, can she get young people to turn out and vote for her? Not if we've settled on her months before the first primary.

I'd have figured anyone writing a piece on this would spend more time demonstrating how Clinton's likely easy primary win can help in a General Election. There's a case to be made for that, but the piece ignores it.

I think it's more addressed to the ridiculous media concern trolling that continually oscillates between "hilery not inevitable!!!1!1!!" and "hilery is inevitable but it sux 4 her". They could at least make up their mind.

Quite frankly, I find the whole concept of "needing" a primary to be patently ridiculous. And the only time people try to apply it is to Hillary Clinton. Why wasn't the media talking about how Obama should get a Democrat to run against him in 2012 to "make him a better candidate"? What about a Republican against Bush in 2004? Primaries against incumbent Senators, governors, or Representatives are universally treated as a bad thing for the candidates in question. And for good reason. Not only will the person have to use resources fending off the primary challenge, they could also, you know, lose. Which wouldn't be a possibility against no opposition or token opposition.

You can make the argument that it's a different situation for a non incumbent, but that still doesn't work. For one thing, there's the fact that she's essentially the de facto incumbent anyway. She's certainly polling like one. Secondly, people see clearing the field as a positive even for nonincumbent candidates. If you need examples, just look at 2014. You didn't see the media concern trolling about how Tom Cotton and Cory Gardner's uncontested nominations left them "unprepared" for the general, instead you heard about how it was their strength as candidates that allowed them to clear the field. A challenge to Gardner from Tancredo or Buck would've been universally seen as a bad thing. Well guess what? The same thing applies to Hillary.

Sometimes I wonder whether IceSpear is for real.

Mister Mets does bring up a good point though. Competitive primaries can be damaging-- just look at Romney '12. His opponents made personal attacks on him that reinforced Democratic narratives. People in his campaign made gaffes - such as his advisor's "etch a sketch" remark. His party's money and energy was wasted in intercene warfare. He lost his moderate image after pandering to tea parties. And his campaign lost months of organizing time for the GE-- while the Obama campaign started building up its infrastructure in key states in summer 2011, Romney couldn't focus on it until nearly a year later. As a result, his ground game suffered. The GOP has certainly concluded that having a nominee sooner rather than later would be a good thing.

Indeed. This "primaries are a good thing" canard is awfully odd considering it contradicts the media's own narrative about how Romney having a fierce primary actually ended up hurting him in the end. I seriously don't see the logic here. Everybody acknowledges primaries against incumbents are bad. Everybody acknowledges clearing the field is a good thing for a strong nonincumbent candidate. So why is it different here? Even the strange and oddly specific "primaries are only good against nonincumbent presidential candidates" theory is disproved by the aforementioned Romney example.

Let's get to the root of the truth here: the media wants the Democratic primary to be competitive for ratings. Even many of the Hillary haters have acknowledged this. Before it was "Hillary is not inevitable, so someone should run and defeat her. 2008 redux!" Now that that train has left the station, they've moved on to "Okay fine, she's inevitable, but someone should run a competitive campaign against her anyway. It'll be good for her because reasons!" What they really mean is that it will be good for their bottom line.

What moderate image? He lost it during the 08 primaries.

I think you're right IceSpear. Journalists are under a lot of pressure to keep their profession alive by getting as many "clicks" as possible... the best argument for a competitive primary on both sides of the aisle may be that it provides a sort of stimulus for those in the political writing field :P Or, they could make like Nate Silver and find something else to talk about at downtime.

Oh she might be inevitable for the nomination, nobody said otherwise; but nobody seriously thinks that she's gonna have an easy time of it during the general; she has a record to explain & what about "donorgate"? Then what about Bill? He's still there! Hope for Hillary's sake there are no more "bimbo" eruptions or any other eruptions for that matter;  he might not be the candidate,  but old bubba is still a major figure in public life and if it's about Bill, then all her oxygen gets sucked out and his activities become an albatross for Hillary. The Republican nominee can, if these things come to pass, just get out of the way, watch today's "shoo-in" become tomorrow's "also ran" ....might be a good idea not be checking out colors for those drapes to the oval office quite yet!☺

Plenty of people have said that and continue to do so.

The idea that the 2012 primaries harmed Romney's prospects in the general election deserves more scrutiny.

What scrutiny?

Rather than letting Romney define himself and what the Republican Party stood for going into 2012. It put on primetime television from 2011 to mid-2012 a circus of far right jokes to define the Republicans for the American people.  Obama could just tie Romney to being the leader of the party that would put Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, etc. in power.

It also created an incredibly conservative delegate turnout at the GOP National Convention which led to Romney's acceptance speech looking a Nazi rally rather than something to be proud of.

It's worth distinguishing between effects from business plan candidates like Gingrich and effects from competition itself. Party leaders clearly believe that the former wasn't helpful to the party at large - hence their concern about excessive debating - but my skepticism holds in either case.

More to the point, is there any reason to expect that "letting Romney define himself and the Republican Party" would have been anything other than a disaster? It would have been a case of giving a condemned man enough rope to hang himself.

I think the first Presidential debate showed that if Romney had the chance to define himself and not let base of the GOP dictate the first 2/3rds of his campaign from 2011 to the convention, he would've done a lot better and possibly would have won.

It is a bit different.

The expectation is that an incumbent will not be challenged in a primary, so a serious challenge would suggest that the incumbent is weak somehow (even though it's not clear the extent to which the primary makes the incumbent weaker, or weakness makes primary challengers likelier.) Incumbents have a high profile due to their positions, which they're able to utilize for free media.

Candidates in active primaries will get a lot of media attention, thanks to debates, campaign events, interviews, etc. If Hillary's keeping a lower profile, there won't be as many challenges to the Republican arguments, and there won't be as much coverage of the Democratic arguments.


It's honestly not clear. She currently leads in polls, partly a result of her less partisan image. There will likely be a decline during the General Election, so there's an argument for keeping the election period as short as possible. But maybe she'll be better able to weather the decline better if she's in the race longer.

In the event that a progressive candidate lost with a signifcant chunk of the vote (say 30 percent), she'll also have to deal with some potentially pissed off base voters.

It could also be easier for her to stick with arguments against Republicans for as much of the campaign as possible, whereas Republicans will have to switch from appealing to primary voters to the General Election campaign.

I think there are pros and cons to a competitive primary, and I honestly don't know which would be better. There are all sorts of odd factors. For example, there's the impact of states where independents can vote in primaries is unknown. Maybe centrists who don't have the option of making a difference in a Democratic primary will pick more exciting/ moderate Republicans.

Those are good points about the pros and cons of a robust primary contest. Remember 2008; the longer that Hillary fought the good fight, it made her a better and seasoned candidate; the campaign for her was a good learning tool; however as the 2016 contest looms; Hillary might not have too look to appeal to primary voters; therefore she has developed an effective issue base; there won't be that hunger "the eye of the tiger". There's no narrative for her campaign,  besides a cool resume, the Clinton name ....that's a double edged sword, her husband and the argument that "it's my turn" are not compelling motivators. How is she going to define herself? "I'm not Obama" That's like John F. Kennedy, saying "ask not what your country should kinda do for you, ask what you should like do for your country, because it would be kind of cool and stuff...If you dig what I am telling you for sure" Not a resonant call to arms is it?. Hillary,  if I was her political campaign adviser; I have her sit down & ask her what she wants, what she truly believes and skip the theme, elect me because I'm Hillary and I'm a woman and I have the brand name.

But that's good enough to elect such a unremarkable person as Hillary.

Which is a pity....The media are the fault; they certainly don't want to Diss the Clinton's by calling her out on things that no other candidate wouldn't get away with. I mean how ridiculous is this? Jeb Bush is condemned for being the brother and son of presidents and Hillary Clinton is basically given a free pass on almost everything. Me thinks those Clinton's are running scared at the idea of having to face Bush; they or the Democrats won't admit it...they wouldn't, would they?....that doesn't mean they wouldn't and I have doubts about the protestations of "independent's" or other "Republicans" on the site.  Think the danger is that poor old Hillary has high expectations that the Republicans are going to be dead easy to beat, would love to be proverbial "fly on the wall" at Clinton  campaign GHQ  come October 2016 when she realizes she doesn't have the election nailed...shame!

I seem to remember a lot of people suggesting she was "inevitable" just a few years ago, too...

My point exactly oakvale...it's amazing how most folks have short memory spans when it suits them...The reason why Obama won, because he was hungrier and the Clinton campaign didn't take Obama seriously until it was too late. Doubt they have learned much in the intervening period. I might be wrong, hope I'm not.

Keep in mind Hillary still came close in '08.

It's possible that things will happen in 2016 that seem obvious in hindsight, but Obama had advantages no one potentially running for the Democratic nomination in 2008 has. There was a hunger for the first black President, and African Americans formed a majority of voters in several Democratic primary states. He was a Senator from the big state next to Iowa, with a high profile but a record thin enough to be a blank slate for voters. He was younger with an activist/ academic background that could excite the base.

He did run a better campaign, but he was basically built to win a presidential primary.

Not really. That was a retrospective narrative based off very little at the actual time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/01/remember-when-nobody-gave-obama-a-chance-to-beat-clinton-never-happened/

As for the differences, it's really not hard to see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-inevitability-this-time-is-different.html?abt=0002&abg=0&_r=1

It's very hard to imagine how Hillary Clinton doesn't get the nod...unless a health issue arises, the foreign money situation leads to a revelation that has ethics ramifications or legal ones as a result of her role as Secretary of State; the fact is, that Hillary hasn't come as far as she has without crossing someone along the way, if she has an enemy who is waiting "in the long grass" then all bets are off...no contender could weather a storm and run a campaign these days...not in the 24/7 news paradigm of today.  It is eight years later, Obama is still president, his record and the fact that he is grudgingly supporting her, is a double edged sword. Hopefully for Hillary, Bill has been a good boy & hasn't done something that overshadows her campaign or does damage to her. Getting through the primary process is one thing....even if it's a coronation - a general election campaign is another thing. It don't see a Bush, Walker or Christie been too pliant to the narrative that Hillary is the winner & everyone should roll up there tents and go home. If the 2008 campaign -primary,  was tough for her and she lost!- then the 2016 campaign - the general - is going to make the 2008 campaign look like a pleasant pic by comparison,  in other words, a real doozy. I have my doubts about the circumstances of why and how the foreign money controversy came out, I think the Clinton's put it out there, as they identified it as a real problem - the old campaign play book from Bill's campaign has been dusted off - if there are problematic issue that could cause a problem - disclose it early on, lance the boil before it erupts and causes a mess - better to have the controversy now than in the summer or fall of 2016. Very slick. But I'm convinced there is an issue out there, that doesn't dovetail with Hillary's strategy and will trip her up at the crucial moment, when she least needs or expects it. A debate, a revelation which is hidden away and which her opponent leaks through a third party to the media - without getting his own hands dirty...but still benefits from the negative fall-out. Watch this space.

Well, I never agreed on the "inevitability" nonsense, but no sane person is going to claim she is not strongly favored now.

Not this again- and from you, of all people. We've exhaustively proven that we're not dealing with the same thing here as in 08.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=55743.0

Who do you THINK will win the Democratic nomination?
April 2007
Hillary Clinton [48.1]         -15 (27.8%)
Barack Obama [32.0]         -19 (35.2%)
Al Gore [9.0]         -2 (3.7%)
John Edwards [8.0]         -10 (18.5%)
Bill Richardson [3.3]         -7 (13%)
Other         -1 (1.9%)

SO INEVITABLE