Hillary’s the Inevitable Democratic Nominee? Not so Fast

 

shutterstock_155865410You’ve all heard the conventional wisdom: Hillary Clinton is a sure thing for the Democratic nomination. No one in the party is going to be able to muscle her aside. Don’t be so sure. As things stand right now, Hillary could lose the nomination without Fox News and the rest of the conservative media having to so much as lift a finger.

Don’t forget what happened back in 2008, when Hillary was also supposed to be inevitable. The Clinton machine was unstoppable—right until the moment it was overthrown by the progressive Left. They look at the Clintons and see political opportunists rather than true believers, Wall Street cronies instead of populist champions. They are not happy about this coronation. But, because the Clintons are powerful, wealthy, and ruthless, no one will take them on directly – the strategy has to be making Hillary’s candidacy untenable.

That’s what we saw with the disastrous tour to promote Hillary’s book – the criticisms all came swiftly, and from the left. The stories about the emails? Researched and promoted by the progressive ProPublica. The fact that Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash is being amplified by liberal media outlets like the New York Times (undermining Hillary’s claim that this was just a right-wing smear job)? It wouldn’t be happening if they wanted her to be the nominee.

Indeed, if Hillary and Bill don’t withdraw soon in order to protect their status and the viability of their foundation, expect Attorney General Loretta Lynch to be encouraged to pursue the legal questions behind the destruction of emails and the unreported, seemingly coordinated, contributions that linked the foundation and government deals.

The Clintons have given the Left the rope it can use to hang them. Progressives don’t want Hillary to be the nominee. So why should we assume she will be?

 

There are 25 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    Because there is no “rising star” behind her.  Bernie Sanders?  Martin O’Malley?  Joe Biden?

    Nope, nope, and (snicker) nope.  For better or for worse, it’s Hillary.

    • #1
  2. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    I get the sense that what you’re saying is accurate, but then I wonder, who will replace her as the progressive favorite? Bernie Sanders is left enough, but he lacks all the other — um, distinguishing characteristics of an ideal progressive dream date: pigment and female anatomy, for example.

    Elizabeth Warren? I suppose if you think Obama’s just a peach of a president there’s some logic to running another first term senator, what with her other qualifying traits of lack of Y-chromosome and Native American ancestry. Ahem.

    I can see the bumper sticker now: Elizabeth Warren 2016: Because she’s a womyn of color and she knows you didn’t build that.

    But, it’s very hard to think like a progressive — and I just hurt myself trying. Please excuse me while I go rinse my brain.

    • #2
  3. user_554634 Moderator
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    I’ve thought this for a long time. In addition, I think her current popularity arises from the lack of a clear alternative. But they are slowly showing themselves and I believe that when the push comes to the shove Dems are going to shop around. They simply have to keep the agenda stoked.

    • #3
  4. gts109 Inactive
    gts109
    @gts109

    I think there’s a lot of truth in what you say. No way there’s a criminal investigation.

    • #4
  5. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    This is why I’m fairly confident about 2016.  Assuming the Republicans don’t do something completely insane, Hillary can’t win.  She’s a human toothache.

    Somebody (Mark Steyn?, Jim Geraghty?) suggested recently that Hillary could save herself the 1.5 billion or whatever she’s planning on raising for 2016, lock herself in a bunker and do no campaigning at all and get roughly the same percentage of the vote.

    I disagree.  The more visible she is, the less people will like her – especially in contrast with a young energetic Republican nominee.  Hillary is an old lady.  She’s shrill and unpleasant with no discernible political talents.  Nevertheless she’ll get 47% of the popular vote – the Democrat base.

    But the swing voters won’t vote for her.

    • #5
  6. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    Unless Elizabeth Warren decides to run, Hillary will be, 100%, the nominee.  There is simply no one else even close to her that could run a general election campaign and have the built-in infrastructure.  Martin O’Malley was a maybe, but the events in Baltimore cast major light on his failure to run that state and fix core urban problems.

    The bigger question is – who is Hillary going to name as her running mate?  I have 2 prevailing theories.  One – Elizabeth Warren.  An all female ticket that hammers home the one “advantage” they have – gender – and throws a giant bone to progressives.

    Two – Julian Castro.  The San Antonio Mayor (or his brother – I get them mixed up) will almost certainly be on the ticket if Rubio or Cruz are on the Republican ticket.

    This will be a McCain situation – a dissatisfied base that has to settle for a retread candidate and that calls for a bold VP choice.  Here’s hoping Castro flops like Palin.

    • #6
  7. user_30416 Member
    user_30416
    @LeslieWatkins

    My suspicion is that the primary determinant is the president himself, that is, whether he sees a Hillary presidency as a bulwark of his legacy.  If not, and he makes it known that he does not want her to succeed him, I think the party faithful will turn on her completely followed by the establishment.

    • #7
  8. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Western Chauvinist:I get the sense that what you’re saying is accurate, but then I wonder, who will replace her as the progressive favorite?

    I think that’s the real question. I don’t think Hillary will be their nominee – it’s not that the progs are offended by her obvious criminality, but even they have enough sense not to trust her. She’s a progressive by inclination, but mainly because the opportunities for graft are better and its easier to get away with illegality among the already-bent. I have to suspect there are projects underway to select a replacement, not that I’ve seen any particular indication but because the people who bankroll her party are as venal as she is, and smarter.

    • #8
  9. user_1065645 Contributor
    user_1065645
    @DaveSussman

    Leslie Watkins:My suspicion is that the primary determinant is the president himself, that is, whether he sees a Hillary presidency as a bulwark of his legacy. If not, and he makes it known that he does not want her to succeed him, I think the party faithful will turn on her completely followed by the establishment.

    THIS.

    I wrote about this as well. I believe the Obama/Jarrett camp are suitably concerned about Hillary.

    • #9
  10. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Hillary Clinton is the next President.  Why?

    Women who casually vote Republican with no real passion for conservative causes will cross over and vote for Hillary because it’s time for a woman.

    You heard it here first.

    • #10
  11. TKC1101 Inactive
    TKC1101
    @TKC1101

    When they raise most of the 2.5 billion and have it funneled into a maze of places, she will, with anger and sadness , withdraw to become the very wealthy “woman who should have been president”  .

    • #11
  12. Larry3435 Member
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Wow, Hillary Clinton will be taken down by a vast left-wing conspiracy.  That is just too cool for words!

    • #12
  13. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    The fact that so many Democrats got behind Obama in 2008 so quickly makes me think if there is some viable compelling candidate who emerges she could go down. Considering Obama’s record and relative obscurity it could be anyone.

    I want her to be the Dem nominee like Obama wanted Romney.

    As long as Bush isn’t our nominee, she will lose.

    • #13
  14. Paul A. Rahe Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe
    @PaulARahe

    Heather, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But Obama has so thoroughly hollowed out his party that I have trouble discerning an alternative.

    The first rule of politics is that you cannot beat somebody with nobody. The Democratic Party is the largest collection of nobodies in the United States.

    • #14
  15. Heather Higgins Contributor
    Heather Higgins
    @HeatherHiggins

    Paul A. Rahe:Heather, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But Obama has so thoroughly hollowed out his party that I have trouble discerning an alternative.

    The first rule of politics is that you cannot beat somebody with nobody. The Democratic Party is the largest collection of nobodies in the United States.

    That’s what many said about Obama’s qualifications.  Obviously our standards are not determinative. :)

    • #15
  16. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    Paul A. Rahe:Heather, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But Obama has so thoroughly hollowed out his party that I have trouble discerning an alternative.

    The first rule of politics is that you cannot beat somebody with nobody. The Democratic Party is the largest collection of nobodies in the United States.

    There has to be a former Governor or Senator with dreams of being President. Win or come close in Iowa and New Hampshire, and I think Hillary’s momentum fades very fast.

    • #16
  17. das_motorhead Inactive
    das_motorhead
    @dasmotorhead

    Heather Higgins:As things stand right now, Hillary could lose the nomination without Fox News and the rest of the conservative media having to so much as lift a finger.

    One might in fact suggest that the fewer fingers Fox lifts, the more likely she loses.

    Eventually someone reasonably prominent in the conservative media will say something stupid, turning her back into a victim and ginning up sympathy votes.

    On the other hand, as pointed out above, Clinton becomes less attractive the more she speaks.

    So really the question is which side can keep its mouth shut the longest?

    • #17
  18. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    I think things move a lot quicker today than in elections past – if it’s obvious that Hillary is going down, say, if Bernie Sanders performs the role McCarthy did against Lyndon Johnson, a lot of folks could raise money very quickly on the intertubes. I’m sure Sherrod Brown, Howard Dean, Jeff Merkley, some of the white males that have been shunned by the party might decide to get back in

    • #18
  19. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Hillary will get the nomination because she will not be challenged. The Clintons have bought off, run off, scared off all the competition. At this point there are what 8 or so Republican candidates? How many Dems? In a race of one she will win.

    • #19
  20. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States. You heard *that* here first.

    • #20
  21. EvlMdnghtBmr Member
    EvlMdnghtBmr
    @Evlmdghtbmr

    If things go further south for Hillary, I think Bill DeBlasio jumps in as the progressive alternative.  http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/bill-de-blasio-nyc-contract-with-america-new-york-117676.html#ixzz3ZM6zxYtz  The beauty of this “contract” effort is that, if Hillary recovers and looks strong in the next couple of months, he’s just raised his national profile in a non-threatening manner.  If she doesn’t, he’s a natural for a draft movement.  Assuming Elizabeth Warren still doesn’t want to run, he becomes the lefty alternative (REALLY lefty-this guy was a Sandanista fan and honeymooned in Cuba with his lesbian wife before any part of that was cool), the “honest” alternative (It’s New York, so I assume he’s a little dirty, but I’m unaware of any scandals), and the “youth” alternative all in one (he’s in his 50’s, which will look young next to Hillary).   Hillary will lean hard on experience, but he has 8 years on the New York City Council, and-by the time of the election-6 years in citywide government.  Those two in New York are essentially equivalent to a state legislature and statewide office in a medium-sized state.  Having offered this theory, I will admit that I checked the polling, and by this point in 2007, Obama was already within spitting distance of Hillary.  It is later than we think.

    • #21
  22. Jim Kearney Contributor
    Jim Kearney
    @JimKearney

    Must we assume that if HRC somehow flames out, the “progressive” wing will immediately take (retain) ownership of the Democrats?

    There are events — global, financial, or both — which could shock mainstream Democrats into the realization that their party has tipped too far to the left. Recent electoral results from state and off-year federal elections should also reinforce the fear factor.

    I’m sure there are many registered Democrats who already feel that way, but are too afraid to speak out. Bill Clinton himself was a centrist Democrat once, and achieved his greatest successes when he behaved liked one.

    It was only after Clinton’s misbehavior became the focus that it was impossible for him and the Republicans to do business together. Before Monica, Move On, and Soros, there was welfare reform and a balanced budget.

    There is a strong array of issues championed by Democrats from JFK to Clinton which deserve airing from their side of the aisle. Depending on the how, when, and by whom of Hillary being deposed as the Inevitable One, the far Left need not necessarily be the beneficiary of her withdrawal.

    • #22
  23. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Jim Kearney:Must we assume that if HRC somehow flames out, the “progressive” wing will immediately take (retain) ownership of the Democrats?

    Yeah, pretty much.

    There are events — global, financial, or both — which could shock mainstream Democrats into the realization that their party has tipped too far to the left. Recent electoral results from state and off-year federal elections should also reinforce the fear factor.

    [snip, et c.]

    Actually, I don’t think so – not yet, anyway. No amount of damage to society would have that effect, the power of lefty ideation is too strong. Political defeat would have that effect, but we have to get there first. The defining political current of this time is the left’s commitment to irrationality, and the various reactions to that trend.

    • #23
  24. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Jim Kearney:…

    Bill Clinton himself was an opportunist Democrat once, and achieved his greatest successes when he behaved liked one discarded left-wing ideas for political expediency.

    FIFY.

    • #24
  25. Jim Kearney Contributor
    Jim Kearney
    @JimKearney

    Western Chauvinist:

    Jim Kearney:…

    Bill Clinton himself was an opportunist Democrat once, and achieved his greatest successes when he behaved liked one discarded left-wing ideas for political expediency.

    FIFY.

    Give me a couple of dozen Senate Democrats expedient enough to balance this country’s federal budget, and that will Fix It For all of us.

    • #25
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.