Sorry, But Clinton’s Inevitability Is Not a Problem

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Matty]

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.

[Free Bird]

Stop

[IceSpear]

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

[Phony Moderate]

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

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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

[IceSpear]

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?

[Zioneer]

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.

[Thunderbird is the word]

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.

[Beet]

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.

[VPH]

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

Shots fired.

[Beet]

Whoever can boost the bottom of the ticket (Senate, House, Governors) the best is best.

Don't forget state legislatures.

[IceSpear]

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.

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?

[Xing]

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.

[King]

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.

[IceSpear]

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.

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.

[Xing]

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.

[Mister Mets]

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.

[IceSpear]

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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Sometimes I wonder whether IceSpear is for real.

[Beet]

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.

[IceSpear]

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.

[Maxwell]

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.

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

[Beet]

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 Or, they could make like Nate Silver and find something else to talk about at downtime.

[heatmaster]

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!☺