Skip to main content

Markos Moulitsas at Dailykos has a thoughtful piece up on the 2016 presidential primary for the Democrats, arguing that Hillary is inevitable; Elizabeth Warren isn't running; and that the latter fact is actually a good thing for progressives. I agree with Markos that Warren is a major asset right where she is- her Senate seat gives her a great platform to drive the progressive cause forward, now and for many years to come. He is right on target that she is a genuinely good legislator, with an amazing instinct for how to get things done there given how short a time she has been a politician, and that a presidential race could hurt her effectiveness in the Senate (although I think Markos overstates that point, there have been many senators who have run for president, lost, and came back to the chamber just as or more effective than they were before).

I am an old friend of Elizabeth, and I can also verify that she is not being cagey or coy when she says she isn't running. Elizabeth is the most genuine person I have ever known with the title of politician, and everyone should take her at her word that she does not want to or plan to run. Here's the thing about Elizabeth: it isn't about ego and ambition with her. Most of the politicians I have known in my life who have come to me for advice as to whether they should run for office, the questions are almost always about whether they can win, what would it take to win, is it the right time, how would they raise the money, what's the winning electoral coalition, who should they hire to run the campaign, what should their message and lead issues be. Rarely, but every so often, a potential candidate will muse about whether their particular skills were better in a management role (president or governor) vs a legislative role. When I was talking with Elizabeth in the months leading up to the running-for-Senate decision, we spent almost no time on those kinds of questions. What she was focused on instead was where she could make the biggest difference in changing the country on behalf of everyday people, as a senator or as an organization leader, author, movement leader. Until she became convinced that the Senate was the place she could make the biggest difference, she had no intention of running. For now, I know she believes that being in the Senate is the best place for her to fight the good fight.

So there is a lot to be said for Markos' article, he makes a lot of great points, but I want to push back on this Hillary is inevitable thing, because I think it is dangerous for the entire Democratic party (including Hillary, frankly) and for the progressive cause. And, to be blunt, it is just completely wrong when you look at history.

Hillary may yet get a coronation, sailing to victory with little or no opposition in the primary, but I'm not at all clear that would be good for her general election campaign. The closest thing we have had to that in the recent past was Gore's relatively easy win over Bradley (although it was harder than it looked), and Gore didn't exactly roll into the general election geared up and ready for battle. And the lack of a serious fight would stifle the kind of serious and important debate the party needs to have over its policy direction in the years to come, papering over the very real populist vs. Wall Street Democrat divide that exists. It would also be pretty awful for the base and progressive movement, giving them nothing in the presidential cycle for a year and a half (until the general election) to fight for, rally around, or just be very interested in politically.

So I don't think an easy win for Hillary is automatically a good thing, even for her. But I also don't think it is that likely. If you look at the history of presidential politics in the modern era, the last half century plus, the strongly favored frontrunner almost never cruises easily to victory. Big stuff, little stuff, insurgencies popping up out of nowhere, scandals, stumbles- frontrunners, even the dominant ones, have lost a lot more often than they won, and generally even when they have won, they had a hell of a tough road getting there. In fact, in only two of the past 11 Democratic presidential primaries where there wasn't an unchallenged incumbent president has the clear frontrunner at this moment in the four-year cycle gone on to win the nomination, and in one of those two situations (Mondale), he had a far tougher fight than expected.

In 1960, LBJ was the clear frontrunner, the dominant figure in national Democratic politics. He had by far the most important endorsements, and the strong support of the party establishment in most of the states. Hubert Humphrey was widely thought of as the only guy with a decent shot of beating him. Jack Kennedy was a lightly regarded upstart, with his youth and Catholicism considered obstacles way too big to overcome.

In 1968, LBJ- this time as the incumbent president- was of course going to win the nomination hands down. He completely dominated the party machinery, had limitless campaign money stashed away, was further ahead in the polls than Hillary. Gene McCarthy's campaign was considered worse than a joke, it was assumed to be a short-lived token protest movement. My first political memory, as a seven-year-old just getting interested in politics, was seeing that LBJ speech where he stunned the world by announcing he would not run again, and I will never forget the looks of shock on my parents' faces.

In 1972, Ed Muskie was the overwhelming frontrunner- way ahead in the polls, the money, the endorsements, everything. A silly media frenzy over whether he cried, and a hippie volunteer army for McGovern in New Hampshire, were all it took to quickly dislodge him from the race.

In 1976, Teddy Kennedy was the frontrunner in the polls but did not run. There were several Senate heavyweights who were thought to be top tier candidates, all of them faltered. Absolutely no one predicted Jimmy Carter.

The 1980 race was the only serious primary against an incumbent in modern presidential election history, and oddly, Teddy Kennedy actually started with a huge lead in the polls, as Carter was pretty unpopular with the Democratic base. But after Kennedy's disastrous 60 Minutes interview, everything reversed and Kennedy never recovered.

In 1984, Mondale was the overwhelming favorite, as far ahead as Hillary in the polls and with every major group and most politicians' endorsements. He didn't make any big mistakes, ran a strong early campaign, and easily won Iowa as predicted, beating Gary Hart 50-17. But Democratic primary voters were restless, bored with Mondale's safe establishment-mandated coronation, and looking for someone new. When Hart came out of the pack of candidates with a surprising second place finish, he trounced Mondale in NH and was on a roll, winning most of the next several primaries. Without some stumbles, Hart would have been the nominee.

Speaking of stumbles, Hart's big one on his friend's boat, the Monkey Business, with Donna Rice forced him to withdraw in 1988 after being the overwhelming favorite in the early polling. Gephardt, who had been working Iowa for years, became the favorite after that, but last minute entry Dukakis raised a lot more money than anyone else, and Gephardt split the populist vote with Simon, Gore, and Jesse Jackson. Gephardt won Iowa, Dukakis finished a pretty anemic 3rd there, but the late-entry candidate who had been at 1% in the polls ended up easily winning the nomination in the end.

In 1992, Cuomo was the strong favorite in the polling and among pundits right up until the time he decided not to run (quite late in the cycle, he was still debating with himself in the fall of '91). After that, Clinton was one of the favorites until he stumbled, after which everyone pronounced his campaign over, after which he came back and won the nomination. (And after he won the nomination, up until the Democratic convention no one thought he had a shot of beating Bush.)

In 1996, no one challenged President Clinton for the nomination after he decisively beat the Republicans in the budget showdown. In 2000, there was the only primary fight in this entire saga that went pretty much as predicted, with Vice-President Gore keeping his early lead and turning back a challenge from Bill Bradley, although a lot of us who closely followed the race think that if Bradley hadn't spent too many resources contesting the Iowa contest where he was never going to win, that he would have beaten Gore in NH (he only lost 51-47). In that scenario, Bradley might well have made that race a hell of a fight.

In 2004, Hillary Clinton was way ahead in the early polling but did not run, and there was no real favorite. In the early days of the race, it was thought that Gephardt would win Iowa and Kerry would win NH, but then both faded and Dean came on from nowhere (literally 0 or 1% in the early polling, with no one predicting he had a chance) to a big lead in the polls, money, and endorsements. When Dean made some late mistakes, and Kerry and Edwards put together a late surge, the race was reshaped again.

Finally in 2008, people have already forgotten how inevitable Hillary was seen then. At this time of the cycle then, July of 2006, it looked unlikely that Obama would even run. And throughout 2007, she had a wide lead in the polls and endorsements.

That's the track record, folks: 11 contested primaries over the last 54 years, only one of them turned out pretty much as expected, and only two where the pre-season favorite even won. Anyone saying Hillary is a sure thing based on a big lead in polling, her fundraising advantages, and her status as favorite doesn't know his presidential election history very well. Right now, the polls mean nothing, the establishment support means nothing. Frontrunners decide not to run, stumble in the early going, listen to the wrong advisers in creating their campaign strategy, get upset in the early going. Even the ones who do most things right and don't have strong initial opposition, like Mondale, sometimes run into an electorate that doesn't like being told they have to vote for the frontrunner.

I'm sure people will read this history and say, "Yeah, well, this time is different, Hillary is so far ahead that no one else has a chance". That could well be, but again: don't count on it. LBJ in '68, Muskie in '72, Mondale '84, and Hart '88 were all just as dominant or more dominant in the early going, and none had superstar opposition going against them. The one thing I know for sure from my years in and studying presidential politics is that it is utterly unpredictable- crazy stuff happens out of the blue all the time. Do you really think it is inconceivable that the Clintons might be engulfed in a scandal? That Hillary is immune from serious mistakes? That a candidate with nothing going in the polls might catch a wave and suddenly raise a bunch of netroots money?  Hillary is a good bet to win this election, I sure wouldn't predict anyone against her- but please, Markos, don't bet your house on it.

None of this is to argue that Elizabeth should run for president. To run for the presidency is about the most brutal thing a sane and genuine person can do to themselves, and Elizabeth is most assuredly both of those things. If a person doesn't want to run, all that craziness is unbearable, and right now she doesn't want to do it. She knows that she is having a huge impact right where she is, that she can move our national politics in a more progressive direction while also being a great legislator, that she can help build a powerful new progressive populist movement by staying where she is- all of those things Markos said were true. If she ever changed her mind and did decide to run for president, this time, next time, whenever, I would personally drop everything I was doing and go to the barricades for her, as would tens of thousands of other activists, but I am also completely happy in supporting her in staying in the lane she has chosen for herself.

Having said that, though, it would be such a huge mistake for anyone- most especially Hillary, but anyone else analyzing this race- to think this race is over six months before it has even begun. You just don't know what is going to happen next, and that fact truly is the only thing in this presidential race that is actually a lock.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  TL;DR: Front Runner gets stomped. News at 11. /nt (0+ / 0-)

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:45:03 PM PDT

  •  Time will tell. (7+ / 0-)

    Predicting whether there will be a contested race seems to be a fool's errand, because we simply don't know who will run.  

    I think Hillary likely will run, but I don't know that.  As for others, there is not a lot to go on.  

    Perhaps this post is better left to January 2015.  It is different from Markos' post, a post that primarily said the Warren is not running, a fairly verifiable proposition based on her statements.  

    PS, why do you rarely if ever engage in the comments?  This is not HuffPo.

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:45:41 PM PDT

    •  primarily, but... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, TomP, cany, Mopshell

      kos did say that "Clinton will be our nominee," and that Warren would get crushed if she ran. It was his weakest point, and he probably should have left it out. One thing I like about this diary is that it separates the Warren discussion from the inevitability discussion.

      "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

      by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:00:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Warren would defeat Clinton if she decides (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        karma13612

        to run, and I believe she will. She will inevitably go to the place where she can accomplish the most.

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:59:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is no hope for you elwior. SMH. (0+ / 0-)

          Once again, what are you basing this on? What statement(s) or action(s)?

          New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

          by AlexDrew on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:09:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I am always amazed at how little we believe in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    democracy as we write off Warren as Hillary is inevitable.  And Warren is also so fine where she's at in the senate because she knows how to get stuff done, instinct you know.  Instead, we need a bold discourse of the issues with every hand on deck.  I want among others see Hillary and Warren debate the issues and offer their version of vision.  So let's unchain Warren from her senate chain and unchain Hillary from her inevitablity chain so we the people can hear them out and then decide by secret ballot who we want, among others that is.

    •  You may want to see Warren and Clinton (6+ / 0-)

      debate issues, but doesn't Warren get a choice in that?  She keeps saying that she is not running.

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:48:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Moot Issue (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gooserock, elwior

        I seriously doubt HRC would consider facing Warren in any sort of debate, because Warren is strongly anti Wall St., anti wealth inequity; HRC loses on those populist issues right off the bat.

        HRC would also likely lose on other major issues, because she doesn't have a strong position one way or the other.

        http://www.ibtimes.com/...

        "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

        by Superpole on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:29:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unmentioned in that article is one (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, ColoTim, Superpole, Mopshell

          other big problem for Hillary against a populist like Warren.  The unions.  Unions were pissed about NAFTA.  And, in the years since NAFTA, union workers have seen their ranks shrink and their pay stagnate.

          Who would the unions work for?  Hillary or Warren?

          •  Hillary did not support NAFTA (0+ / 0-)

            It is one of the issues that she did not agree with her husband on.

            •  Nope.. she was all-in on NAFTA (0+ / 0-)

              until it became inconvenient to be..
              Clinton has changed on NAFTA

              Clinton wrote positively of her husband's efforts on NAFTA in her memoir "Living History," published in 2003:

              "Creating a free trade zone in North America — the largest free trade zone in the world — would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal."

              During a 2004 teleconference on funding cuts for job training, Clinton was asked whether NAFTA should be revisited. She replied, "I think that we have to enforce the trade rules that are inherent" in NAFTA. "I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America, but I also think that there are a number of areas where we're not dealt with in an upfront way in dealing with our friend to the north, Canada, which seems to be able to come up with a number of rationales for keeping New York agricultural products out of Canada," she said.

      •  She should be the moderator at the debate. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OregonWetDog, CwV, TomP, elwior, Mopshell

        GRILL the candidates.

        Make 'em squirm.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:43:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  She will be convinced to run (once again) when (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        karma13612

        she realizes what's at stake.

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:43:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some people really don't have the stomach or the (0+ / 0-)

          Temperament for a presidential run.  She is one of them.   You really have to put up with a lot, have a very large ego and be willing to spend lots of time asking people for money.  Warren has said she won't run and I believe her and respect her decision.

          Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

          by Mimikatz on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 10:51:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Nobody makes more of an impact (3+ / 0-)

    as a senator than they would as a president. When someone says that Warren will make more of a difference as a senator, the implication is that she would lose the race for the presidency. The president has huge powers that no senator has (especially not junior senators), there's really no comparison when it comes to ability to influence issues (and history). Warren is a MA liberal professor, and while she would certainly excite certain elements of the Democratic base, she'd be a real challenge for us to elect in a general. And it would be a huge disaster if we nominated a MA liberal professor and then lost; eight years of Bush/Cheney was a horrific experience and not one I'd like to repeat anytime soon. Warren should stay in the senate because for now at least it's the best gig available to her. And Kos is right that despite Hillary's shortcomings she is as good a bet to win the presidency as anyone has been (probably dating back to Washington).

    •  "excite certain elements"???????? (6+ / 0-)

      HRC would have that same problem in the GE, as she has the same charisma as Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.

      When was the last time an uncharismatic nominee from the Democratic Party was able to win a GE?

      Recall how Senator Obama galvanized the masses, verbally moved us to canvas for him.  His speeches transcended politics; his was a movement to transform America.

      How many Dems can honestly say they feel that invested in HRC?

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

      by PatriciaVa on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:00:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Our issues with her is exactly what (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Swig Mcjigger, AlexDrew

        makes her palatable to the rest of America. The rest of America is very different than what we have here. Unless you think that all polls are biased and useless, you have to concede that what they are telling us, consistently, is that this woman is headed for the presidency. Especially given the problems in the GOP today, a strong candidate like Hillary is a godsend for us Democrats. Sure she is too hawkish, and has no spine when it comes to controversial progressive issues. But she is a good Dem, and is infinitely better than any Republican, and no other Dem in the nation has got half the natural support that she has.

        •  Intrade had HRC at 90%+ in 07 to win Presidency... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dump Terry McAuliffe, elwior

          Yet, she wasn't even able to secure the nomination.

          Too Hawkish?

          Do we want a nominee that's closer to the Iraq War than the GOP nominee?

          Heck, even if it's Jeb, HRC is still closer to the Iraq debacle than the brother of the man who initiated the fiasco.

          And judging by her stance on Syria, where she advocated increased US military support to the Cannibal Rebels, it doesn't seem that HRC has learned from her mistakes.

          Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

          by PatriciaVa on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:38:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Intrade? Come on. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dr Swig Mcjigger, AlexDrew, tomwatson

            In what way is Intrade relevant, to anything? We want (some of us, at least) a candidate that is going to win. That's priority #1, #2, and #3. In fact, nothing else counts. Keeping the letters G-O-P away from the Oval Office is the most important thing progressives must do. Her shortcomings on issues that matter are disappointing but pretty much irrelevant. Most of us understand this, and are going to keep focused on what really matters.

          •  And in 2006 Giuliani was thought to be the GOP (0+ / 0-)

            Candidate.  Both were seen as inevitable.

            I like the idea of Hillary for one term, and a bunch of people run for the VP slot so we can see future leadership and get set up for 2020.  I don't see anyone else with quite her stature right now but worry about her age (I'm even older than her and know what it feels like).

            Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

            by Mimikatz on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 10:43:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  She has one major bonus in her favor: gender (4+ / 0-)

        If she ran, I predict massive armies of female volunteers.  The Republicans have white males, for the most part, as their candidates and their war on women will be very much at issue.  Hillary's gender will mobilize women and nothing the Republicans could do - not even nominating a female vice-presidential candidate like Nikki Haley would change that.  Sarah Palin would get even MORE women to work for Hillary.  I don't think it would come down to charisma - it would be all about the first woman president and I believe it would happen.

        imho, I think if the Democrats ran a white male for President (sorry Mr. Biden), I think women would feel spurned ala PUMA, even if Hillary did everything possible to get the Democrat elected.  Unless it were Warren, in which case populists would be happy as would women.

    •  Huh? Here We Go Again... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      worldlotus, Mimikatz
      The president has huge powers that no senator has (especially not junior senators),
      Really? I wonder what these huge powers are-- given the fact major items on Obama's agenda have gone nowhere-- closing GITMO, immigration reform, raising the minimum wage, etc., thanks to the deadbeats in congress, where the actual power lies.

      "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

      by Superpole on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:19:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Appointing the Cabinet for one. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        karma13612, WisePiper

        Appointing the heads of regulatory agencies and the Fed. And judges to the Federal bench, and Supreme Court Justices. And being Commander-in-Chief, and setting the agenda for his/her Party, as well as the prestige and the influence of the Office. Being the Head of State of the U.S. government, having the "bully pulpit," i.e., the biggest megaphone there is in the Nation. Being the head of his/her party, and on and on and on.

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:10:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One More Time: (0+ / 0-)

          The POTUS does not appoint SCOTUS or Federal bench judges-- he nominates them for the position, there is then a Senate confirmation process.

          Regarding "setting the agenda for his Party"; true, but since the deadbeats in congress are actively blocking a large part of Obama's agenda, it's more or less moot and certainly does not represent great power or influence.

          The same applies to the "bully pulpit" and the big megaphone; congress is not listening.

          "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

          by Superpole on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:22:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Ask Ted Kennedy about his Presidency and how (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mimikatz

      much get done by not being elected.

      People find their respective niches: the limits to one's success or career.

      He made a lot out of being the 'Lion of the Senate."

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:55:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He was in the senate for over 40 years. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, karma13612

        Elizabeth Warren will never serve anything like that amount of time. If you really think that someone new to the senate can have as much influence as someone elected to the presidency, then that's okay by me. You'd be so obviously wrong that there's no point discussing it further. And by the way, the Kennedys (Ted included) spent countless years chasing the presidency, so I don't think any of them would agree that it is not as important as being one of 100 senators.

  •  This could all change in a heartbeat.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hanging Up My Tusks, elwior

    and, as you so very accurately pointed out, probably will.

    Even Jerry Brown seems to be the subject of the latest talk about Hillary challengers.

    It really depends if Hillary is running.  If she doesn't - for any of a variety of reasons - it will be chaos.. Biden, Cuomo, Dean, Gillibrand, O'Malley, Warren and Bernie Sanders, and others..

    It would be a much more interesting race than an inevitable Hillary - who, I believe might have a hard time winning depending on the GOP challenger.

  •  How not to be wrong (0+ / 0-)

    Forget individual identity, what matters is proven devotion to the central principles of the existing hegemony.  Regardless of who gains the nomination, or the presidency, be quite sure of the following:

    (1)  Domestic/economic policy will in all matters conform closely to the principles of Reaganite neoliberal corporate capitalism, the upward redistribution oif wealth, and the economic theology of "job creationism";

    (2) Foreign/straegic/military policy will be composed almost in its entirety iof the US attempts to give orders to the rest of the world.  When nations we don't like fail to totally submit with sufficient alacrity, assume military interventionism to follow,. colored as "national greatness" or "liberal interventionism" depending on the party in the White House.  hetoric aside, it will be impossible to detect any difference, and rare enough even in the rhetoric.

    Just stick with this analysis and there will never be any need (or impetus) to admit any error.  Life under hegemony is nothing if not predictable.

    Pay no attention to the upward redistribution of wealth!

    by ActivistGuy on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:17:10 PM PDT

  •  Part of the problem (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, tomwatson

    Is that anyone who runs in a primary against Hillary will suffer in the long run compared to how hard they compete. A coalition is building around Hillary of women, minorities and the LGBT community. A majority of big money donors are stake horsing a Hillary run.

    They want a continuity of service to protect the gains we've made in the last six years, and ensure continued progress on the issues that really matter. Like immigration, like a woman's choice, like healthcare.

    We often joke that X is running for the vice presidency, even if they are a qualified candidate, because nobody wants to be the guy that hits hard enough to leave a mark. If they do, all these ancillary groups will make life difficult after they lose, and pull tactical support during critical moments of legislation.

    Republicans burn their heretics at the stake, Democrats give them giant hugs, and then insert the knife below the ribcage and twist.

    I like Sen Warren, but I'm also glad she's staying in the Senate to champion progressive causes without participating in a presidential run that will damage her political brand and her message.

    This revolution is not scheduled!

    by harrylimelives on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:19:38 PM PDT

    •  Big money is holding off (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      until they know she's running, from what I hear.

      And her coalition is small - devoted, but small.

      Part of the problem is that anyone who runs in a primary against Hillary will suffer in the long run compared to how hard they compete.
      Just running gives one credibility.  She will have to fight for the nomination over months of primaries.  It is the last thing in the world she wants.  An unknown upstart from Illinois put the kibosh on her plans for inevitability last time.
      •  Not small (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ColoTim, Radiowalla, cville townie

        she got more than 17 million votes in the 08 primaries. She is popular with  women and latinos, two key elements of the Democratic coalition.

      •  Big money isn't holding off (4+ / 0-)

        They're waiting until she formally announces her Hillary for America campaign.  I sat in a meeting last week with a big Democratic fundraiser, and he told me that bundlers are already reaching out to their donors, so when the time comes it will be as simple as pushing a button to turn on the money machine.

        Let's put it this way, Hillary will have unlimited resources in the primary and the general.

        If you think Hillary's coalition is small, you're lacking the situational awareness of what's really going on in the party.

        This revolution is not scheduled!

        by harrylimelives on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:51:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  exactly (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          harrylimelives, AlexDrew, Radiowalla

          I could not think of a more incorrect summation of her coalition. She won primaries from coast to coast last time. That's not a small coalition by definition.

        •  She cannot even sell a million copies of her book (0+ / 0-)

          Actually.. I read it was closer to only a half million sales so far.

          Sorry.  It there was such an up-swell of support for Hillary in America, her books sales would not be as dismal as they have been.

          A couple weeks ago, The Great Gatsby had a higher sales ranking than Hard Choices.

          and..

          They're waiting until she formally announces her Hillary for America campaign.
          Isn't that what I said?  Isn't "waiting" the same as holding off?
    •  in 2008 Edwards and Obama together "hit hard (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      enough to leave a mark."

      That was Front Runner (and inevitable) HRC, if you recall.  Edwards was a retread and Obama was a newcomer.

      In 2004, Gephart and Kerry (and the rest of the field) ganged up on Dean prior to Iowa.

      Both of these cases left the putative front runner in the also-ran position.

      Diarist has a point about what happens to front-runners.  (Although Muskie got taken out by a Nixon dirty trick... who very much preferred running against McGovern.)

      If indeed HRC is running, she'd do best to delay the official announcement to minimize "time in the sun" and in the field of fire.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:49:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Very smart analysis (0+ / 0-)

      ...this entire diary and most the comments miss one glaring fact: the biggest grassroots movement in the country for 2016 is to elect Hillary Clinton.

  •  Thanks for this. The HRC inevitability (5+ / 0-)

    spiel is going to drone on non-stop until she either is or isn't the nominee. Two years from now.

    Ugh.

  •  huh, this might be a record (5+ / 0-)

    225 diaries, 226 comments. That's a whole lot of "Tip Jar." (I started out just curious about your intro about "Markos Moulitsas at Dailykos," as if that were somewhere other than here. Crossposts are fine, but that struck me as odd.)

    I agree with just about everything you said here. I wish you'd engage in discussion.

    "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

    by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:46:24 PM PDT

  •  Yes, yes, it's two years away and your point is... (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, yes, it's two years away and your point is?

    Hillary forever!

  •  I thought (0+ / 0-)

    there is a moratorium on this sort of thing until after Nov.
    Please no more HRC/EW/POTUS diaries until then

  •  Also (0+ / 0-)

    the diarist was WAY TOOOOO verbose...take a rest, people.

  •  Thanks for a great historical (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love, elwior

    ….perspective on Presidential campaigning. It seems filled with flux and last minute change.


    _______________
    For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
                -- Albert Einstein:  far left, emo-prog, socialist.

    by Pluto on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:04:07 PM PDT

  •  HRC will always be inevitable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, karma13612

    2008, 2016, 2024, 2040 ....

    I suspect that pronouncing anyone inevitable is a kind of electoral "kiss of death"...

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:15:41 PM PDT

  •  Democrats are Nominating a Woman (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sreeizzle2012, tomwatson

    If you are for Joe Biden or Martin O'Malley, I am sorry to inform you that the Democratic electorate has decided they are going to nominate a woman for president. Only another woman, like Elizabeth Warren, will be able to defeat Hillary Clinton.

    I agree with the diarist, unlike Republicans, Democratic voters like new faces. In contrast, Republicans like the familiar face, and often pick the runnerup of the last major Republican primary contest. Look for Jeb Bush to be stronger than prediction - if he decides to run.

    This means that Elizabeth Warren does have a good chance at winning the nomination. Despite new faces doing well in Democratic primaries, the frontrunner the summer before the Iowa caucuses, usually does win the nomination. I remember in the fall of 1975, despite being an unknown, Jimmy Carter was the odds on favorite to win the Democratic nomination. I also remember Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton being the frontrunner the summer before Iowa caucus. In 2007, Hillary was the frontrunner, but most insiders knew that Obama had a lot of potential. Thus, we will have a good idea what odds Elizabeth Warren has of winning the nomination by the summer of 2015.

  •  Elizabeth Warren's Message... (0+ / 0-)

    is the most powerful Democratic message in decades.  Elizabeth's truthful message is that the system is rigged to benefit perhaps a quarter of the people.  And she isn't afraid to say it.  We all know that THE fight we should have in 2016 is over out of control economic injustice.  It towers over every other issue. The very notion of what America should be is at stake. I'm afraid Hillary is not capable of waging that fight because she does not feel it in her soul.

  •  fantastic review & analysis workproduct (0+ / 0-)

    & good example of the kind of material that makes Daily Kos a compelling place and required reading for the rendering and practice of politics and governance.

  •  This line rather offensive, Mike... (0+ / 0-)
    "Do you really think it is inconceivable that the Clintons might be engulfed in a scandal?"
    That's a GOP talking point, right there.

    Would you be just as comfortable with this one:

    "Do you really think it is inconceivable that Warren might be engulfed in a scandal?"
    I doubt it.

    Unfair - you should change the post.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site