7 Things About the Inevitability of Hillary Clinton You Probably Haven't Thought About

[red dog 1]

AlterNet
May 7, 2014
By Guy Saperstein


"In December, 2007, just as the 2008 presidential primaries were beginning to heat up, and with Hillary Clinton 26 points ahead in national polling of Democrats, I wrote an article for AlterNet arguing that she was beatable, that she had vulnerabilities the other candidates did not have, that she had historically high 'unfavorables,' that she polled poorly against Republicans and that Democrats should rethink the "inevitability" of her candidacy.
Apparently, they did, and we know how that turned out.

Once again, Clinton is riding high in polling of Democrats; once again, her supporters are claiming she is "inevitable," and once again she has vulnerabilities other candidates lack, including extremely high "unfavorables," as well as additional liabilities in 2016 she didn't have in 2008 --
some of her own making, some not."


More:
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about/

16 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Hillary Clinton will definitely be the Democratic candidate in 2016
	1 (6%)
	Hillary Clinton will probably be the Democratic candidate in 2016
	8 (50%)
	Hillary Clinton might be the Democratic candidate in 2016
	1 (6%)
	Elizabeth Warren will probably be the Democratic candidate in 2016
	0 (0%)
	Elizabeth Warren might be the Democratic candidate in 2016
	1 (6%)
	Someone other than Clinton or Warren will be the Democratic candidate in 2016
	5 (31%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Shandris]

1. (Humor) In the games that I tend to play...

...the last thing you want after you is an Inevitable!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inevitable_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

[Scuba]

2. ...

[yurbud]

3. do a parallel poll on who we WANT to be president

[red dog 1]

30. 1st) I don't know how to do a "parallel poll"

2nd)...a poll on who we want to be POTUS is a good idea, IMO.

Who would be the potential candidates, besides Hillary, Warren & Bernie Sanders?

How about Alan Grayson (D-FLA)?

[yurbud]

44. "parallel" just means related not a coding issue or something

[yurbud]

45. Hillary's unintended nightmare could be: clearing field of DLCers before primaries

and having ONLY progressive challengers in debates.

Then it would be tough to shut them out of debates.

[Shoulders of Giants]

4. I'm from Illinois and always felt that Obama would be a strong contender in 2008.

Hillary had some major problems with her campaign such as voting for the Iraq war. I remember everyone saying she was inevitable, but I always felt Obama had as much chance as winning in 2008 as she did. And he ended up winning is an extremely close horserace, despite all the commentators in 2007 saying Hillary without question would win in 2008.

I criticized everyone for saying that in 2008, but now I will be the one to say Hillary is inevitable in 2016. The Iraq War is out of people's minds (It really shouldn't be, it was a terrible war and Hillary Clinton should be accountable for her vote in the 2016 primaries, but probably won't be). However, more important than that, I don't see any strong alternate candidate to Hillary Clinton in 2016 that has the mass appeal that Obama has. I don't think Elizabeth Warren has that kind of charisma. I will probably vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2016, but I think Hillary will win.

[yurbud]

5. I only see one advantage to Hillary getting the nomination and then presidency

Fox News and right wing talk radio will dust off their shoebox full of feminist, lesbian, witch, murderer talking points, repeat them ad nauseum only to find that they drive voters into Hillary's arms.

[stevenleser]

8. There is another advantage to any generic Democrat winning in 2016 and 2020

Every year that passes, demographics makes it harder for a Republican to ever win again.

I think by 2024, it will be completely impossible. Just holding the White House between now and then is important given that reality.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Impossible if they nominate the kind of people they nominate now, but...

We're not going to win Latinos and white women in the same proportions forever. Republicans will eventually get tired of losing elections and nominate someone more moderate.

[stevenleser]

16. The far right keep claiming that the reason they lose is the person isn't rightwing enough.

It will be a long and painful process before more Repugs accept that the country has moved way past where they are.

I'm not sure they will accept that before 2024 at least.

[yurbud]

23. it would be nice to have a Democrat who didn't advance the conservative agenda during that time

[stevenleser]

6. There is only one reason Hillary was not the 2008 nominee. She didn't take the caucus states

seriously.

If she had planned for a long war of attrition that included putting good infrastructure on the ground in the caucus states, she would easily have been the nominee and the President, despite how good of a candidate Barack Obama was and how good of a campaign he and his team put together.

Anyone making hay out of bragging that they knew "Hillary was beatable" is giving themselves way too much credit.

[quaker bill]

12. I took bets before the first ballot was cast.

minor bets because I do not gamble. Some Hillary fans at work owed me a coke on a pretty regular basis.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Her poll numbers in Iowa were a clue that she was beatable

But even so, she did have to run a horridly disorganized campaign in order to end up losing.

[nyquil_man]

17. In other words, she was beaten

precisely because she and her campaign didn't think she was beatable.

It might have been beneficial to consider that possibility then and it would be beneficial to consider it now.

[stevenleser]

18. Only partially. Her campaign's strategy was to knock out everyone else early.

They didn't think anyone else could survive a loss of 4 or 5 of the first 5 contests.

They might have been right. Problem for them is, they didn't win 4 of the first 5 contests. When that didn't happen, it was a particular problem in the caucus states. Primary states can be won with a lot less infrastructure on the ground and a lot of media advertising.

You cannot do that with a caucus. You need to have been working the state for a lot of months ahead of time with a lot of experienced campaign workers who know the state well. You can't put that together in a few weeks.

So it was partly bad strategy and partly assuming that no one would be around after 4-5 contests.

[nyquil_man]

21. Yes, her campaign bought into the same hype everybody else bought into.

Everybody, that is, but the Obama campaign. They laid groundwork in the caucus states. They prepared for a long fight. And they raised the money to do it effectively.

It's all well and good to say that nobody knew that Clinton could be beaten, but it's simply not true.

[stevenleser]

22. Once again, a boolean proposition that some folks guessed right about and think that means something

My advice to those folks would be, don't strain yourself patting yourself on the back.

[KittyWampus]

26. My take on Hillary's campaign- it was too old school. Insular. And it concerns me

thinking about her running a second time and the possibility of her winning.

WAshington is insular enough, IMO.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. She was beaten because her campaign was a mess

There was no organization or chain of command, just lots of bickering among top advisers. Harold Ickes had been warning about the problems with the caucus states for months before any votes were ever cast. But it got completely lost in the shuffle.

[wyldwolf]

7. She more than likely will be IF she runs.

[red dog 1]

28. Good point!

She hasn't officially announced that she's even running yet.

[Logical]

9. Anyone but Hillary! nt

[justiceischeap]

10. I'm torn about Hillary for many different reasons

However, I think as a first female President, politics aside, she is a good example (unlike say Bachmann or Palin) for younger women to look up to. She IS smart, she's tough, she does have some progressive tendencies in some areas--women's rights, LGBTQ rights, I think she could take health care further and I think she would make could Supreme Court nominee decisions.

But then I look at her corporate interests and get lukewarm about her. That said, sadly, I don't know if a serious candidate can be successful these days without corporate sponsorship...

[bettyellen]

11. yep

[wyldwolf]

15. the money HAS to come from somewhere. Presidential campaigns ain't cheap.

[red dog 1]

32. "I don't know if a serious candidate can be successful these days without corporate sponsorship"

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
"has never accepted corporate PAC money, and the average donation to his campaign during the first quarter of 2014 was $28.95
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/30/bernie-sanders-for-president-its-the-longest-of-long-shots-but-that-doesnt-mean-he-wont-do-it/

[PeaceNikki]

41. I voted for her in the 2008 primary for the (positive) reasons you cited.

Obama had already locked it by then. Especially with all of the Palin hubaloo, I really wanted to vote for an intelligent, strong and successful women for the most powerful office in the world. I wasn't sure I would ever really get the chance again.

It felt good.

[fadedrose]

20. Not sayin that it will be him...

but Howard Dean sparkled on CNN's Crossfire tonight. They did his makeup and directing a helluva lot better thatn MSNBC ever did. Maybe MSBNC wants somebody other than Dean to look good.

I hope Dean sticks with CNN. They seem to like him.

[red dog 1]

33. I'd like to see Howard Dean run in 2016

IMO, he's as smart as they come;
and it doesn't surprise me that he "sparkled on CNN's Crossfire."

I hope he sticks with CNN too.

[Blue_In_AK]

24. Hillary has a likable persona,

but I'm not so sure her centrist policies are what we need right now. I'm pretty ambivalent about her; I would welcome someone to her left.

[red dog 1]

34. "I would welcome someone to her left" too

In fact, I can't think of any Democrat in Congress (who might run in 2016) who is NOT to her left.

I like Hillary.

I think she did a fine job as both U.S. Senator and as Secretary of State.

However, IMO, the Democratic Party needs a "populist" candidate in 2016, to assure that the GOP doesn't capture the White House.

Four names come to mind.
1) Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) if he became a Democrat
2) Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FLA
3) Former Gov. Howard Dean
4) Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

[Blue_In_AK]

43. Yes.

[moondust]

25. Hillary has lived in the bubble too long.

Secret Service agents, one percenters, Wall Street son-in-law, celebrities, traveling entourage, luxury accommodations, etc. She's out of touch.

By way of contrast, here's Bernie on Reddit yesterday about worker ownership and co-ops:

Ironically, I just met a few hours ago with Vermonters who work in ESOPs and worker-owned companies. They tell me that when workers are involved in owning their own companies they feel better about their jobs, productivity is up, absenteeism is down. I have introduced several pieces of legislation which would make it easier for companies to become worker-owned. This is an issue I feel very strongly about.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/24zdnn/i_am_senator_bernie_sanders_ivt_ama/chc7cfr?context=3

When was the last time Hillary met and discussed issues with "the folks back home" without it being a staged photo op?

[red dog 1]

29. I would vote for Uncle Bernie,

if he were to become a Democrat, that is.

[red dog 1]

31. "When was the last time Hillary met & discussed issues with 'the folks back home'

without it being a staged photo op"?

Excellent question!

By the way, did you know that Thom Hartmann has a weekly hour-long Bernie Sanders segment called "Brunch with Bernie"?

[moondust]

35. I've heard of it.

But I haven't tuned in. I should probably start doing that.

[red dog 1]

38. Bernie was on Thom Hartmann's show today in the third hour

http://www.thomhartmann.com/

[red dog 1]

39. I see that you're just one post away from number 9,000

Congratulations!

[moondust]

40. You win!!

The Post 9000 booby prize!!

Here it is:

Congratulations!!!!

[red dog 1]

42. You've earned that cup of coffee & donut!

[struggle4progress]

27. I don't expect Clinton to run, and I don't know who will run.

[FSogol]

37. Md Gov Martin O'Malley is running. Clinton will also. n/t

[Pisces]

36. Hillary is the only female that is close to having a chance at the White House.

I think more women will vote and get the vote out for her. We need to continue on the track we are on to turn the Country around. I also think she will pick Castro from NM as her running mate thereby possibly solidifying the first
Mexican American President.

She picks him and the latino community will come out in droves for her as well as the women. I don't see how
she could lose up against the GOP crazies. But crazier things have happened.