Is Clinton Inevitable?

There's been a slightly weird "speaking truth to non-power" moment recently in the blogosphere where MYDD's Chris Bowers has been joining Team HRC in trying to convince us all that Hillary Clinton has a daunting advantage in the upcoming primary race. I'm not buying it and neither is Jonathan Chait who notes correctly that her polling isn't nearly as good in the early primary states as it is in big, vague national polls:

In a memo published the day she announced her candidacy, Clinton pollster Mark Penn offered up a rebuttal to this inconvenient fact. Clinton, he argued, is bound to rise in the early primary states as she spends more time there. But other candidates will be spending more time in Iowa and New Hampshire, too. The question is: Which candidate is more likely to benefit from endless hours of speechifying, hand-shaking, and town hall meetings? There's no reason to think the answer will be Clinton. While she may be just as smart as--and more experienced than--Edwards and Obama, she is an average orator, while Edwards is a very good one and Obama is a brilliant one. Having seen all three give speeches, it's hard for me to imagine how a prolonged side-by-side comparison will move voters into Clinton's camp. And, as the best-known of the leading candidates, she'll have the hardest time making a strong new impression anyway.

This seems right to me. Something Chait doesn't mention, is that I think she's particularly vulnerable because she's counting on a perception of inevitability to boost her to victory. Insofar as leaders of progressive institutions believe she's likely to win, they're unlikely to point out that she's a poor choice. There's no point in opposing someone who's certain to win. But as cracks in the armor appear more evident, I think there's a good chance of a downward spiral as more opinion leaders speak out.

Comments

"But as cracks in the armor appear more evident, I think there's a good chance of a downward spiral as more opinion leaders speak out."

For that to happen a credible alternative will have to emerge.

There will have to be national polls showing another Democrat doing better against the GOP frontrunners.

Who will that person be.

I don't see Obama emerging as a credible alternative. His candidacy is based almost entirely on media hype. His "why can't we all get along" message will wear thin. Even George Will commented on it today in This Week.

Edwards has a chance. He is well liked by the base. If polls show him doing well or better against the GOP frontrunners he can derail Hillary.

And then there is Gore. If he decides to run he would be a formidable opponent to Hillary.

Posted by DonB | February 4, 2007 1:19 PM

"The question is: Which candidate is more likely to benefit from endless hours of speechifying, hand-shaking, and town hall meetings? There's no reason to think the answer will be Clinton."

This is obviously wrong. There are polls out in the last few days showing Clinton's numbers moving up since her visit to Iowa.

Hillary has one advantage over her opponents. She has been demonized for 15 years. So the bar is pretty low for her. When people meet her they are pleasantly surprised. Compared to the caricature she comes across pretty reasonable. She exceeds the expectations.

Obama will have the opposite dynamic. The media have portrayed him as the second coming of JFK. There is no way he can live up to expectations.

Again my guess is Edwards will be the biggest threat to her. He has not been built up by the media. He is likable and well informed. He is running an agressive campaign.

Posted by DonB | February 4, 2007 1:28 PM

It goes without saying that Johnny "bitchen populist" Edwards and Barack "he's like totally a fresh face" Obama don't just say different things than lib Hitler Hillary but would be wildly different than that chick once they got elected. But obviously what's really important is not what they do while in office but what they say before they get elected - especially about Iraq, abortion, and gay marriage.

Posted by Linus | February 4, 2007 1:33 PM

We must keep in mind, of course, that Matt's record of prediction regarding inevitability and evitability is less than totally untarnished.

Posted by Julian Elson | February 4, 2007 1:41 PM

She's particularly vulnerable because she's counting on a perception of inevitability to boost her to victory

Not sure how this makes her vulnerable. Didn't Kerry win the nomination based entirely on a perception of inevitability? Surely it wasn't based on side-to-side oratorical comparison to Edwards, Dean, and Clark.

Posted by right | February 4, 2007 1:42 PM

if as i fear we are still slogging it out in iraq then hillary is in real trouble i think. she is already too late to the "i regret my vote" party (from here on out it is just too crass). sheesh, even armey beat her there! and as self destructive as i know i'll hear it is, well i'll not vote for anyone who voted for the war and stuck with that past no wmd. and most of my friends are the same. does this mean possible support for a third party? hell no to the greens. but hillary will get no work outa us. i say its time to draft dean.

Posted by jaimie t | February 4, 2007 1:43 PM

Hillary is far from "inevitable," but she is definitely a strong favorite for the Democratic nomination. How could she not be? Hillary has universal name recognition, celebrity status, a seasoned organization, and lots of money. She's also shown herself to be extremely knowledgeable, willing to sweat the smallest details, and tough under the whitest possible heat.

Hillary also polls well. The most recent polls from Iowa and New Hampshire cited at TPM show her running ahead of Obama and Edwards combined. This is despite keeping her friends quiet about any presidential run until after she was re-elected, a media embargo on puff pieces, and her large negative numbers. It would be interesting if someone did some polling to see what the people who support her LIKE about Hillary Clinton. I haven't seen anything on that score yet. But she must have some qualities that are appealing to the 50% plus who say they're willing to vote for her.

HRC does have weaknesses. She doesn't project all that well into the cameras, has large negative numbers, and needs to explain her support for the war. Personally, I'd like to see Hillary face a strong challenge from Obama or Edwards as a way to toughen up the Democratic nominee for the general election campaign. Right now, however, Hillary is more solid as the favorite than either Obama or Edwards is as her challenger.

Posted by Ric Caric | February 4, 2007 1:47 PM

Didn't Kerry win the nomination based entirely on a perception of inevitability?

No, electability in the general, which is an entirely different thing. Kerry's primary victory was a pretty big surprise. The Iowa Election Markets, for example, had Kerry pretty low before he won the Iowa caucus.

Linus, do you have some better way of figuring out what the candidates would do after elected than what they're saying now? Someone, I forget who, observed that Beltway pundits love to make predictions on reading tea leaves while ignoring people's public pronouncements, and this means they get it wrong. For instance, everyone who was predicting that Bush would use Baker-Hamilton as a cover for withdrawing from Iraq, because why hire Baker otherwise? While ignoring Bush's repeated statements that he was never going to withdraw.

Posted by Matt Weiner | February 4, 2007 1:58 PM

I think a lot of what Bowers is reacting to -- and why it's good that he's doing it -- is wishful thinking from a progressive blogosphere that doesn't like Clinton and is feeling some cognitive dissonance from the prospect of supporting her in the general election. As much as she may be counting on the "perception of inevitability" to win the nomination, the progressive wing of the party seems to be counting on the perception of impossibility to keep her from winning it.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | February 4, 2007 2:01 PM

Could someone explain to me just why Clinton is already the nominal frontrunner, two years out? I mean, I know she is, I just don't understand how she got there, other than by sheer, overweening ambition for the job. Is there anyone who actually really likes her, or who would be super-enthusiastic about a Clinton presidency?

Posted by Alex | February 4, 2007 2:12 PM

"Linus, do you have some better way of figuring out what the candidates would do after elected than what they're saying now?"

Obviously not, but clearly that's okay because Democrats would never oppose military action against Iran and then subsequently invade the country. Nor is it even the case that the blogs would oppose military action against Iran and when it happens during the next Democratic presidency claim it is regrettable but that it would be far worse if a Republican was president.

My view is that we won't have ended Republican tyranny (as well as lib Hitler DLC type tyranny) until Markos is head of the DNC, and we've elected a bunch of Democrats (who are like totally different than Republicans) to the Idaho state legislature.

Posted by Linus | February 4, 2007 2:14 PM

Personally I am not that impressed with "low negative" numbers for a candidate. It usually means the candidate is not well known or has not been subjected to attacks.

Case in point; Polls show Rudy Guiliani with high favorables and low negatives. What does it mean? It means not many voters know about his serial adultery and smelly business deals. All that will change once his GOP primary opponents start running attack ads against him.

Al Gore and John Kerry had low negatives early on. By election day they both had negatives around 45 -50%. Millions in attack ads will do that to any candidate.

Right now Edwards and Obama are both showing low negatives. I am more impressed with Edwards numbers because he has been subjected to attacks. He was attacked and ridiculed throughout the 2004 campaign. Nobody has laid a glove on Obama yet.

Posted by DonB | February 4, 2007 2:15 PM

"Case in point; Polls show Rudy Guiliani with high favorables and low negatives. What does it mean? It means not many voters know about his serial adultery and smelly business deals."

I know, totally. There's no possible way that the Republican base (who are the ones giving Rudy the high marks) watch television and read newspapers and know something about his life and his previous(?) views, and just don't care. After all, ReaganChrist was not divorced, and was not responsible for the liberalization of abortion laws in the state of California. Nor could it be the case that Bill Clinton was a serial womanizer and that most Democrats (who are otherwise inclined toward feminism) simply don't care.

Posted by Linus | February 4, 2007 2:40 PM

her polling isn't nearly as good in the early primary states as it is in big, vague national polls

which suggests to me that the primary system is fucked.

Posted by cleek | February 4, 2007 2:44 PM

"the Republican base (who are the ones giving Rudy the high marks) watch television and read newspapers"

Right now Rudy is getting "America's Mayor" coverage highlighting 9/11 performance.

Do you think his GOP primary opponents will keep quiet about the skeletons in his closet?

"Bill Clinton was a serial womanizer and that most Democrats"

Most Democrats are not members of the Religious Right.

Posted by DonB | February 4, 2007 3:00 PM

Gore could announce in December and render a year's fundraising and campaigning by all the other candidates not just moot, but counterproductive. As much as Iowans and New Hampshire-ans love their political groupie status, a campaign that begins this early will get dull very quickly.

Hillary won't get the nomination. Obama has a chance. Edwards has a chance. But Gore can sit out the tedium, come in late, and get a tsunami of support.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 4, 2007 3:20 PM

Even George Will commented on it today in This Week.

Whoa! George F. Will commented on it? Well, you know what that means, right? Dick.

Posted by ed | February 4, 2007 3:33 PM

Linus is right, even if he is obnoxious. It's very hard to believe that a Democratic congress would break from a president of their own party on such a major foreign policy issue. Of all the serious presidential candidates, she's the one with the deepest ties to the DLC. She's the one most likely to listen to the D.C. press. She's the one with the strongest ties to AIPAC. That means she's the most likely of them to start a war with Iran. I don't say that j

I hate Hillary, though I'm relatively recent to that particular game, so take what I'm saying with that in mind. I have resigned myself to the likelihood that she will be nominated, and I personally find it extremely demoralizing. It's hard to care which party is in charge if the leadership is going to be terrible either way. This isn't really a matter of her not being the one I want, to be truthful I'm not sure who I support anymore. I just don't trust Hillary. I know it's lame, but since her little anti-video game crusade it's hard to. It reminded me of the 90's, and Joe Lieberman and Triangulation. It's a terrible strategy, it destroys the bases faith in your leadership. They see you throwing people who believed in you under the bus and they wonder if they'll be next. We don't need another Democratic campaign like that. Hillary will run a Democratic campaign like that.

Posted by Soullite | February 4, 2007 4:11 PM

It's pretty clear that, at this early stage, Hillary has the clear advantage in name recognition. She will also carry a lot of women voters. I wouldn't say she's inevitable though, because it's just too early and we've seen these numbers move dramatically before.

Posted by Jimm | February 4, 2007 4:17 PM

Hillary doesn't seem inevitable - more like the default, if no one else steps up.

I never liked Bill Clinton, but he was good enough. Hillary would also be good enough. But Gore or Obama could be great, or not. We'll see.

Posted by Gary Sugar | February 4, 2007 4:27 PM

I liked Hillary's campaign kickoff video about starting a conversation, but as far as campaigning goes, I'm not so sure she can handle the big crowds. But that's not New Hampshire primary politics. The activists often meet privately with each candidate, and I think that's a serious advantage in her case. She has a reputation of being very personable and great at carrying a conversation. And for the big speeches? Well, she's got Bill.

Let's think about this. There aren't any serious implications with considering the fact that if she's elected, that's at least 24 years of Presidents with either one last name or the other. 12 years of Republicans named Bush, and 12 years of Democrats named Clinton. Make that 28 years if she's re-elected. Like I said, there are no serious implications with this related to Hillary (she could probably have made it this far w/out her husband -- where would President Bush be if it weren't for his father?), and although it doesn't prove we have a political system that organically favors legacies, it doesn't make it look too good. That might hang in some voters' minds, if not their gut.

Either way, I think this primary season will last a while. I think Hillary will probably win in New Hampshire, but she won't even be in the top 3 in Iowa (against Edwards, Obama, Vilsack, and possibly Gore, heck, she might even skip it). So, we'll probably be going into Super Tuesday with no clear frontrunner. It's going to be, in a word, fun.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | February 4, 2007 5:00 PM

"Most Democrats are not members of the Religious Right."

Nor are they hypocritical about anything. I for one think that Newt was a total sexist not to mention big jerk for screwing around on his wife but obviously Bill Clinton was not. It was a delicate and intimate matter. The Clintons needed time for healing, and closure.

"Do you think his GOP primary opponents will keep quiet about the skeletons in his closet?"

Of course, but the press will continue to be silent on these matters.

Posted by Linus | February 4, 2007 5:26 PM

As much as I would like to believe that Hillary's weaker than we think, the mere fact that Jonathan Chait is playing contrarian here makes me doubtful. How often is he right about anything?

Hillary will be hard to beat in the primaries for the same reason Kerry was; they both go in with a leading narrative as the most reasonable/electable candidate. Narrative momentum counts for a lot.

Posted by cerebrocrat | February 4, 2007 5:36 PM

You're forgetting the recent move, which I can't but be suspicious about, to advance big-market states like NY, CA and IL in the primary calendar. On its face, this sounds small-d democratic, letting states with large percentages of the nation's population help make the decision. But actually, it's the Iowa caucuses that are most democratic, because they let real people get down with the candidates as people, one-on-one. The only way a candidate can deliver a message to meaningful numbers of people in large markets is through large media buys, which cost more money than most candidates have early in the primary season.

The real impact of making the large states important, early, is that it will favor candidates with early money. Edwards can't compete in California's expensive media market the way Clinton can. In fact, no one can compete, financially, with Clinton. Which is why I am suspicious of the early-big-state-primary movement: it smells like an attempt by insiders to stack the decks in favor of HRC. Which, if true, would be just another instance of her un-small-d-democratic tactics to secure the nomination as by right, as opposed to by fair election.

Posted by Thersites D. Scott | February 4, 2007 5:48 PM

There is nothing democratic about the Iowa caucus.

It's wildly complicated and absolutely loaded with advantages to the front running candidate.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 4, 2007 6:02 PM

"Of course, but the press will continue to be silent on these matters."

They have so far. Your link makes no mention of adulterous affairs.

Posted by DonB | February 4, 2007 6:13 PM

Ed Marshall: I'd be curious to hear why the Iowa caucuses are so bad. And, more to the point, do the favor the front runner more than a California primary would? I'm really asking...

Posted by Thersites D. Scott | February 4, 2007 6:17 PM

I've read that HRC is actually very good in small groups. It's speeches in front of crowds where she doesn't connect well. If this is really true, she could do well in Iowa.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 4, 2007 6:42 PM

"Your link makes no mention of adulterous affairs."

Neither does this one, which also avoids the fact that Giuliani has been pro-choice and supported gay rights.

Posted by Linus | February 4, 2007 6:45 PM

Iowa has a series of community meetings and supposedly everyone makes their case for their candidate and a consensus is reached and one candidate gets the votes from the meeting.

What happens is the candidate with the most money and ground troops comes out on top because it's so much more complicated than going and casting a vote.

That's where Kerry came from last year. Dean had raw manpower and money but it didn't translate into a win because he didn't have the machine in place to make the caucus system work for him.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 4, 2007 6:53 PM

Wow, not last year, last election.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 4, 2007 6:54 PM

I just don't understand how she got there, other than by sheer, overweening ambition for the job

Basically the same way GWB did, if you think about it-- via access to a great deal of money and a political organization already tied to a former president, one to whom she happens to be related. It's not really any more complicated than that.

Posted by latts | February 4, 2007 10:33 PM

"Dean had raw manpower and money but it didn't translate into a win because he didn't have the machine in place to make the caucus system work for him."

Funny. The way I read the '04 Iowa polls, Dean didn't win because Iowa voters didn't like him and his campaign. Dude had awful approval/disapproval numbers well in advance of caucus day.

Posted by Petey | February 4, 2007 10:48 PM

latts: word! That's exactly it.

Posted by Thersites D. Scott | February 4, 2007 11:15 PM

I've always wondered why we haven't seen a team run for the Presidency + VP. What if Edwards/Obama had hooked up and announced that they were running as a unit? I think the idea would be pretty powerful.

There are some really good arguments to be made against Hilary, one of which is that in the general election, she will pull almost no crossover Republicans, few independents, and she is not popular with the progressive netroots in her own party. Those are three significant constituencies to be without.

Posted by global yokel | February 4, 2007 11:52 PM

When people say that HRC is tough, I always think of her shrinking away from Rick Lazio when he approached her with a piece of paper to sign in the 2000 debate. I don't trust her at all with our military.

Posted by Just Karl | February 4, 2007 11:57 PM

Yokel, the dream ticket for me is Gore/Obama.

Posted by Just Karl | February 5, 2007 12:02 AM

I don't trust her at all with our military

Are you kidding? I don't understand how toughness relates at all. She won't have to fight.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 5, 2007 12:13 AM

I see her vote on Iraq as a calculated political decision designed to make her look tough. To me, that was a decision which put her own political interests ahead of the interest of our troops and our country. She was compensating for her perceived weaknesses in preparation for her Presidential run and not acting out of conviction. That's not what I'd call a virtue in leadership. But even if she was acting out of conviction, the results in Iraq have proven her judgement suspect. There is little in her experience that invites trust.

Posted by Just Karl | February 5, 2007 12:37 AM

Hillary Clinton is about as inevitable in 2008 as Joe Lieberman in 2004.

I doubt she will get the nomination and I doubt even more she will win the general if she wins the primary.

The albatros is of course Iraq about which HRC has demonstrated the courage and the consistency of a weathervane. She’s tagged as a pro-Iraq war and it’s too late to change that perception with the base, no matter what she says now. It’s over. It just won't fly with the base and that will translate in the primary once we are past name recognition polls.

The nightmare scenario would be for an anti-war republican to lead in the Republican primary - Hagel or even Brownback or Huckabee (still a cypher, that one). If HRC leads on her side by destroying her opponents by attrition as she seems to plan, the Democrats would end up about Iraq in the hallucinating position of being flanked by the Republican candidate on their left.

In that case, two scenarios:

- The Democrats go with HRC to the general and commit ritual suicide, a good part of the independents and even the base going to the “maverick” Republican. It won’t be a Mondale but it will come fairly close.

- Gore jumps in the race in the last days of the primary registrations, raises something north of 200 millions dollars in the first 48 hours from a terminally frustrated base. HRC is obliterated in the space of a few weeks by a squeaky clean Gore, untouched by the media in this cycle, and fresh may be from an Oscar or even (heck !) a Nobel Peace Prize.

Of course, this assumes that the US is still up to the neck in Iraq or worse, Iran, when primary season really heats up. If it’s not the case, then anyway it would mean that something absolutely momentous would have taken place in the previous ten months - President Pelosi or something of that scale - and in that case, whatever political games are being played now become totally irrelevant.

Posted by Fifi | February 5, 2007 1:44 AM

Hillary has made her careful calibration on exactly where she wants to bein the political spectrum and who she wants to appeal to and leadership, war and peace, the future of America and the world will have to find their own way without her. She has to live with her decisions. I won't vote for her (for President); as Senator she does not do active harm but doesn't do much good either. I thought Dick Armey's mea culpa a lot more convincing than Hillary's rather measured re-examination of her 2002 vote and her continued support forthe Bush policy and outlook if not the war itself.

Posted by della Rovere | February 5, 2007 7:47 AM

"Chris Bowers has been joining Team HRC in trying to convince us all that Hillary Clinton has a daunting advantage in the upcoming primary race. I'm not buying it"

Of course she has a daunting advantage in the upcoming primary race. It's been more than 30 years since the favored candidate of the institutional party has failed to win the nomination of either the D's or R's.

That doesn't mean Hillary is inevitable, but you're not up to speed on these matters if you don't think she has a big advantage.

Posted by Petey | February 5, 2007 7:55 AM

"When people say that HRC is tough, I always think of her shrinking away from Rick Lazio when he approached her with a piece of paper to sign in the 2000 debate."

And she should have done what to show you she was tough? Punch Lazio? Hurl insults at him on national TV? What exactly?

"The nightmare scenario would be for an anti-war republican to lead in the Republican primary - Hagel or even Brownback or Huckabee"

All of whom supported the Iraq war. Why is this not a problem for them but a problem for Hillary?

Posted by DonB | February 5, 2007 1:06 PM