Really? Are we sure about this?
All the current buzz and chatter - in the mainstream media, social media, interpersonally, etc. - about Hillary Clinton being the "inevitable" Democratic Party nominee for the presidency in 2016 is absurd. It is laughably premature at best...and a potentially catastrophic miscalculation at worst. Hillary is
not a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination, let alone for the presidency itself. Hillary is not the inevitable winner of any of it.
Nobody is.
I challenge every person reading these remarks to disengage from the gathering groupthink. To anyone here who still pays any attention to MSM morons like Chris "Tweety" Matthews and Joe "Morning Joke" Scarborough, ignore them. They are the announcers at the horse track. They spew hot air for money - that is all.
Likewise, take anything you may read at Politico, or the Washington Post, or Slate, or Salon, or Rolling Stone, or even here at Daily Kos with a couple pounds of salt. Well-informed professional journalists can report such facts and figures as poll numbers, campaign hires, fundraising results, even behind the scenes organizing and deal-making. But even they cannot predict the future.
The truth is, no matter how much money, organization, or momentum Hillary may have, at least for now, almost anything could yet happen. Elections are largely determined by factors that cannot be entirely foreseen, if at all. I'm referring to things such as as the mood of the country in November 2016, the effects of any dramatic public events (i.e. SCOTUS rulings, ACA outcomes, scandals, terror attacks, natural disasters, etc.) that may unexpectedly take place between now and then, the trajectory of the world economy and the domestic job market, and so much more.
Does anyone remember eight years ago at about this time? How "inevitable" Hillary was in February 2007, just before Barack Obama officially declared his candidacy? How all the usual media talking heads were yacking away as if the primary elections were a mere formality, a prelude to Queen Hillary's "inevitable" coronation? Even Hillary herself bought into all the hype and spin - judging by the haughty, cavalier way in which she ran her campaign.
A mere 11 months later, having just been drubbed thoroughly by Barack Obama in the Iowa caucuses, her campaign was already on life support. Had she not managed to squeak out a close, last-minute win over Obama in the New Hampshire primary, the only thing "inevitable" would have been her campaign's immediate free fall into oblivion. Obama would have coasted for the next seven months to the nomination, Hillary would likely never have become Obama's Secretary of State, and at this point we might not even be discussing her "inevitable" 2016 win(s) at all.
Eyes on the prize, sisters and brothers. This thing has scarcely even begun.
12:46 PM PT: It seems to me that a number of those who have commented here are already dismissing my main point. For the record, I can read the tea leaves as well as anybody. I'm well aware of Hillary's many strengths...as well as the lack of strong challengers. My point remains valid: Despite all of this, almost anything could yet happen. History is replete with examples of things that according to conventional wisdom "should" have happened, yet never did.
P.S. If it ever gets to the point on DK that legitimate reality checks are automatically defined as "concern trolling", not to be heeded with a moment's thought, it will mean that the groupthink takeover of DK will have been made complete - thereby rendering DK as a place where candid debate is no longer possible, and disagreement is no longer tolerated.