How sure is the political press that Hillary Clinton would win in 2016? Very.
SOURCE: US STATE DEPARTMENT
I’ve seen a lot of articles written in the last six months talking about how tough Hillary Rodham Clinton would be to beat in 2016, for Democratic rivals and for Republicans like Marco Rubio and Rand Paul.
Even Newt Gingrich chimed in last December, declaring on Meet the Press that the former Senator from New York would be a bruising opponent.
“The Republican party is incapable of competing at that level,” Gingrich said, adding that “trying to win that will be truly the Super Bowl.”
So how deeply is this meme internalized, that if Clinton decides to run she’s a shoo-in? In an article this week for Politico, journalist Maggie Haberman wrote this:
“And if Clinton runs in 2016, [current New York Senator Kirsten] Gillibrand’s next chance at running wouldn’t be for another eight years — a lifetime in politics, even for a younger senator.”
The suggestion here is clear: Haberman thinks Clinton would win and she’d almost certainly be a two-term president, boxing out other Democratic (and Republican) contenders until the 2024 campaign.
Obviously there are some big caveats built into this. Clinton has yet to declare her intentions. And the ocean of time between now and November 2016 could bring a lot of big surprises.
The midterm elections, for example, could give us a much clearer signal about the mood of the country and the appetite of voters for a continuation of a center-left Democratic administration.
And then there is the wild card of Clinton’s opponents. Republicans are scrambling to find a more viable contender than Mitt Romney or John McCain. And Joe Biden is unlikely to step aside quietly, so that could get ugly.
There is also the remote possibility of a truly dynastic face-off, with Jeb Bush appearing on the ticket opposite Hillary Rodham Clinton. That would be one for the ages.
One side-narrative here is that for the first time in a very long while, New York state finds itself at the center of the political ring, with three very serious Democratic contenders — Clinton, Gillibrand and Governor Andrew Cuomo — all hailing, to greater and lesser degrees, from the Empire state.
But for now the political press in Washington is clearly leaning toward a much simpler narrative in which Clinton’s time has come and the smart money gets out of the way.
What do you think? An easy coronation for the first woman POTUS? Or is this chapter of American history still being written?
Hillary Clinton is a Republican in Democrats clothing, a war hawk, and a friend to all things money. Why would Democrats vote for her when they could have voted for Mitt?
And she’s too old…
Except for the age part you could say the same things about Obama, and Hillary has the advantage of being the chosen first woman to be president status. Shoo-in.
H. Clinton and Obama BOTH are Republicans in disguise? Who was the poster who recently said Obamacare was really a Republican idea? Makes me wonder why anyone would want to be associated with the party of lunacy.
“Who was the poster who recently said Obamacare was really a Republican idea?”
Are you suggesting it wasn’t?
Seems like a lot of people jumping on the Republican/Conservative bandwagon lately. Not bad for a party identified so closely with “toxic lunacy”.
Right post, wrong thread.
I didn’t realize that Gilldibrand was a “contender”. But I might vote for her.
Larry, if you put the record of Richard Nixon along side the record of Bill Clinton and deleted names and dates it would be pretty hard to tell which one signed which legislation. And I don’t think Hillary or Obama are any more liberal than Bill.
liberal…. conservative…. it is all a big blur.
Hi Larry!
It was ME! I said the Right was responsible for the individual mandate at the core of Obamacare, but I was quoting Fox News, so, y’know.
And it was me who said the Right has become infected by toxic, lunatic fantasies. (Still waiting for debunkage on that one, by the way.)
I love how Conservatives take an insult aimed at them and then direct at their opponents. Hannity calls Liberals ‘extremists’ and ‘propagandists’ — after the Left pins those labels on him. Then Larry calls Democrats “the party of lunacy.”
You and Hannity had to look ’em up, hunh? Well, you and your vocabulary are welcome. Sure wish you’d try to steal logic, too. Then all our problems would be solved.
But I digress.
January 21, 2017, Chris Christie will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States.
I’m calling it right here, right now.
Sure hope I’m wrong, though.
This is somewhat off topic but it has been on my mind for some time now and I just have to get it off my chest.
I have plenty of disagreements with the far Right on all kinds of subjects, but basically it all comes down to differing visions of the future and how we who are alive will leave the country and the world for those who are not yet born. So we can get pretty angry at each other at times. We hear a lot from the blathering loudmouths on TV and radio, people like Rush, Beck, and Hannity – and that is the crux of my real anger: with all these people spouting ridiculous ideas all day and night we have come to a point where sarcasm and irony have become completely useless!
Sarcasm doesn’t work anymore. It used to be that I could make a totally ludicrous statement and people would recognize that my intent was ironic. The way it is now people believe it! I mean, when there are people in this world who (I am convinced) seriously believe that Mitt Romney isn’t a real conservative because they listen to some dingbat who makes the John Birch Society squeamish how am I supposed to top that in ridiculousness?
I accuse you, Larry and JDM and Crabtree (where the hell has Crabtree gone?) and Rush/O’Reilly/Fox et al in the death of Sarcasm.
Kirsten Gillibrand is suddenly a potential presidential candidate in 2016? When did this happen? I’m a fan and supporter but don’t think she’s ready for that title anytime soon.
I agree with wj.
All Chris has to do is continue to talk straight and lose some weight.
I think Sen. Gillibrand is an interesting national-caliber candidate who is also in a very tough spot. In theory, she’s in line between two other New York politicians, Clinton and Cuomo.
Those leaders have deeper ties to the money, the political leaders, the interest groups that can shape a national campaign.
That said, she’s raised her national profile significantly. She’s young, charismatic, and has a moderate voting record yet has established strong ties to liberal groups.
As Politico notes, it’s tough to know how she might play the next couple of election cycles. If she ‘waits her turn,’ she might be waiting until 2024 or beyond.
It’s an interesting problem for Democrats to have. While Republicans are struggling to find new faces who might break nationally, Democrats have a crowd waiting in the wings…
–Brian, NCPR
Clinton will likely distance herself from NYS in a national election. Certainly great on her resume, but in the end she will be seen as being from the Midwest and the South.
I like Gilibrand, it seems a long long way off however for her to form any sort of national identity or national following.
Christi I think could define the future of the Republican Party. I don’t know if he would win but I think he could certainly set the Party back on track. I would certainly vote for him. Could he beat Hillary Clinton? I don’t know I think it would be a great race and I think it would be good for our country, I would be happy with both of those however.
I simply will not vote for another Clinton or Bush.
This dynasty stuff needs to stop.
Clinton /Cuomo ticket ?
gilibrand moves to gov?
jeb bush and Christie ticket for repubs ?
No Clinton – Cuomo ticket as the President and Vice President cannot be from the same state. saved by the Constitution, again.
There are some on the Left who are suspicious of Gillibrand, unless I’m misinterpreting the word “opportunism.”
From Salon.com:
The skilled, potential presidential candidate has changed many of her positions. But do the ends justify the means?
By Irin Carmon
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/how_to_interpret_kirsten_gillibrands_political_opportunism/
The Left is still ticked off because they couldn’t hand her seat over to their handpicked yet prickly skinned Caroline Kennedy. They keep looking for something for her to do.
Many of those arguments were given by the NYC crowd in a relatively mean campaign in the primary. When Kennedy found she would have to actually work to win the seat she quit.
“the President and Vice President cannot be from the same state”
Yes they can.
Dave,
They could be, technically, but the electors from their own state would not be able to vote for them. It’s unlikely either party would assume that handicap.
That is correct. Hate being a stickler, but given how misinformation is latched on to and repeated, I just assume we speak accurately about what the Constitution does and doesn’t allow. The P and VP can be from the same state, the constitution just forbids electors from that state from voting for BOTH of them.
WJ, interesting article about Gillibrand. That special election took place before I moved here, so I wasn’t hip to the “controversy” surrounding her appointment… or aware of the apparent shift in her politics. Thanks for linking.
Its all about Kennedy. The City people tried to paint Gillibrand as some sort of upstate rube.
The fact is she is great for NYS there is no way Caroline Kennedy would be spoken of now as a potential candidate for President.
I don’t always agree with Senator Gillibrand, but I do respect her and I am happy that she is an up and coming star in the Party.
Plus, come on, its Salon.com…. not exactly a reliable or unbiased point of information.
It’s way too early to talk about the 2016 elections. So much could happen between then and now.
The me-too media seems to have already nominated Hillary. Try to be someone else in the Democratic party who wants to be president and you’ll get no traction anywhere.
That said, she may already be a dinosaur in terms of the younger voters.
Too much good press is more damaging than bad liquor.
re: caroline kennedy
-japan doesn’t want kennedy either. they have too much going on to be thrilled with getting a rookie.
re: same state Pres. and V.P.
never heard of that Larry, and thanks dave for the clarification. Clinton will have to move back to Arkansas.
As sure as they were that she’d win in 2008?
Clinton will benefit from the same phenomenon as Obama: the American people will vote for a candidate who represents an idea whose time is long past due, never mind the individual’s suitability for the office. She’ll get more votes than she deserves.
larry, do you have any evidence for that kind of charge? because the research i’ve seen suggests completely the opposite:
In the 2008 presidential election, Obama got 95 per cent of the Black vote and 67 per cent of the Hispanic vote. Not bad for a candidate with only about 3 years experience in the US Senate and 6 years in the Illinois Senate. He also got 43 per cent of the White vote. So, there’s “racial animus” against the guy who got 43 per cent but not against the guy who got 5 per cent?
hoo boy, larry, no one’s saying that there aren’t racial factors cutting both ways. what the research i linked to says is that on net the racial factors cut against obama, to the tune of about four percent nationally.
Why must liberals always play the race card, even when it isn’t relevant or significant? My point is that Clinton will be a contender, not least because she will benefit as the first female candidate in the same way Obama benefitted from being the first black candidate with a real chance.
huh? larry, you’re the one who brought up race:
are you actually suggesting now that in obama’s case, you somehow meant something other than race?
and your “point” about hillary remains completely spurious, since obama didn’t benefit overall from his race.
OL,
I honestly don’t think that will apply to Hillary. Certainly having a female President is groundbreaking for the US, but in our current environment and our modern culture, I don’t think it is that big of a deal, it is really more of an anachronism that we have not had one, as much as it is some big barrier.
I think if she would win it would be fully on her merits as a leader and not on being female. In fact being female and specifically being married to an ex-President would likely have a slightly negative impact. Much like with Obama, his race had a slightly negative impact on his election outcomes not a positive impact overall.
We all vote for different reasons and certainly some people will voter for her because she is a women but some people will vote against her only because she is a women, but I think today it is becoming a wash between those two camps and the rest are really looking at who can get this job done.
Mervel,
I didn’t mean to imply that Clinton could win because she’s a woman, I meant that it would help her. Some people will vote for a candidate they identify with and others because “it’s about time”. Just two of many reasons people choose a particular candidate. I suspect choosing a president is often more emotional than rational. Having that emotional edge never hurts.
HT,
Stop trying to start an argument over nothing more than your obvious dislike for anything I say. You just look silly.
larry, i wasn’t trying to start an argument, and i don’t dislike anything you say. what i dislike is incorrect information, whether it’s put forth by you or anyone else.
if you want me to stop calling you out for getting things wrong, the solution is not to whine about it, it’s to stop getting things wrong.
You don’t get to decide what’s right or wrong. You can cite all the sources you like and do all the magic math you want and it will not change the obvious: Obama was helped by being black. I know it will disappoint you, but the vast majority of people who voted for his opponents did so first because he was an inexperienced candidate and then because he learned nothing and did nothing during his first term.
larry, how on earth is it obvious that obama was helped by being black?
as i’ve said, i don’t deny that obama gained some votes because he’s black. but just as surely, you can’t deny that he also lost some for the same reason, since anti-black racism is only one of the biggest and most prevalent problems we’ve had in our country’s history.
how on earth is it obvious which of these factors was stronger?
it’s not obvious at all. the only way to try to figure it out is to look at the evidence. that’s what the link i cited tried to do. larry, if you think the study is methodologically flawed, or if you have links to critiques of it, then by all means fire away. explain yourself. people like me will always welcome an evidence-based discussion.
what no one should welcome is when people like larry are just blowing smoke. so far he’s shown us nothing to suggest it’s anything but that.
i do just have to say, if larry calls the work that goes into serious studies “magic math,” then i wonder what he calls just picking things out of thin air?
Democrats routinely get somewhere around 90 percent of the black vote in presidential elections. I think where Obama’s race helped him is in getting more black people (and young people, too), out to the polls who would’ve stayed home otherwise. I think anyone who was alive in 2008 remembers the Obama fervor among the young and in urban areas, the endless talk about the historic nature of his candidacy, and there’s statistics to show that the talk translated into some votes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html?_r=0
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/voting/cb09-110.html
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/30/dissecting-the-2008-electorate-most-diverse-in-us-history/
And this from 2012:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/12/27/168155895/election-study-black-turnout-may-have-surpassed-whites
You’d need to see a state-by-state breakdown to see how much of an effect this really had — maybe more young black people voted for him, and more white racists voted against him, but a few thousand extra Democratic votes in New York or a few thousand extra Republican votes in Alabama wouldn’t make a difference in the Electoral College. I don’t doubt that Obama’s race cost him some votes, too (I’ve got friends and family who would never vote for him because he’s black, sorry to say), but I think the statistics show more minorities voting and fewer white people, which helped Obama overall.
I gave that study a quick read hermit, it seems like a pretty weak premise to correlate racist Google search terms with how people voted and try to draw a statistical conclusion from it. Plus, Obama got 53 percent of the vote in 2008 — if you accept their conclusion that racism cost him 4 percent, then he should’ve gotten 57 percent, which given how closely divided our country is, would be pretty astronomical. Who was the last person to get that much? Nixon in ’72 or LBJ in ’64, probably.
Obama got 95 per cent of the black vote and 67 per cent of the Hispanic vote in 2008. They didn’t vote for him solely on his accomplishments. That’s an advantage. He also got 43 per cent of the white vote. Where’s the evidence of anti-black racism? Finally, he won the damn election. Even if the 57 per cent of whites who voted for his opponent did so entirely out of racial prejudice, it wasn’t enough of a problem to cost him the election.
larry, you seem to get really upset when people question the quality of your comments, but boy do you make it hard sometimes. maybe you should check out the link i provided above? here’s a longer summary quote:
if you want to disagree (and obviously you do), then i think it would be a lot better if you actually engage with the evidence.
Come on Ol, 43%? What do you mean where is the evidence.
Personally, I was hoping to vote for Dennis Kucinich. He’s a white guy and I’m a liberal. Second choice would have been Hillary but she didn’t get the Democrat nomination so I voted for Obama with some enthusiasm but not in the realm of ecstasy.
I talked to some black people who were thrilled to get the chance to vote for a black guy but none of them were going to vote for McCain if Obama wasn’t on the ticket. It seems pretty obvious that the party that alienates minorities with the policies they support just aren’t going to get lots of minority votes. If the Republicans had run Clarence Thomas for president I doubt they would have picked up a lot of black votes just because they had a black guy. Same with that Herman Cain guy.
marlo,
i definitely don’t mean to say that the study i linked to is the definitive word on the matter. i agree that four percent sounds way too high, especially since i believe obama’s vote share in both 2008 and 2012 came in right around what the fundamentals suggested it should be. nate cohn at the new republic had an interesting back and forth (and back again) with the study’s author, seth stephens-davidowitz. i think cohn raises some very good critiques. his final conclusion is