Based on conventional wisdom, Hillary Clinton cannot lose. Or cannot win. It depends on who is talking.
I had a friend for many years who was an avid sports bettor. He researched the ponies, the NBA, and the MLB the way a doctoral candidate researches a scholarly topic. As it happens (and, in my experience, as is often the case), he broke fairly close to even in his prognostications. All that research, however, paid off in one key way: he could always give you a great reason why the No. 8 horse (or the Bucks, or the Dodgers, or ... you get the point)
should have been a winner.
In a similar vein, the 2016 election cycle (at least at the presidential level) is shaping up to be every pundit's dream ... or every pundit's nightmare. When the dust settles and the confetti is swept in November 2016, political voices will immediately and sagely tell us that they saw the impending (victory/defeat) of (Hillary Clinton/whichever Republican emerges) all the way back in early 2015. And, as it happens, they will be "right," but only because of a very fortuitous guess.
An enterprising conservative pundit post-election, for example, could make the case that the rapidly expanding clown car that has become the 2016 Republican presidential primary was a clear sign of the party's incredible strength going into the election cycle.
Conversely, a savvy liberal pundit will be able to make an equally compelling case that the very existence of said clown car was the first sign that the GOP was staggeringly weak.
Hillary Clinton's poll numbers: An indicator of pending Democratic apocalypse, or another piece of evidence of her inevitability? You could make the case either way.
It is the "choose your own adventure" election, to be sure. Head below to see why we know a lot already about 2016, which is why we know damned near nothing about 2016.
FACTOR #1: THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL BATTLE ROYALE PRIMARY
Sweet Hades, is there anybody in a statewide elected office in America that is not running in this Republican primary?
Hell, just in the last 10 days or so, we've been treated to the launching of campaigns by both Ricks (Perry and Santorum, as well as the surefire Empire State juggernaut that is the George Pataki campaign.
It has become a field so saturated with "contenders" that Fox News, which will sponsor the earliest GOP debates, made it clear that they will limit the stage to the "top 10" GOP candidates at the time, based on polling averages.
By contrast, the Democratic primary: (a) has a clear frontrunner in Hillary Clinton, (b) has a modest number of candidates (four or five, depending on if you include Jim Webb in the mix), and (c) has been pretty darned civil, at least so far.
HOW THIS PORTENDS DEMOCRATIC DOOM: One could credibly argue that the raft of GOP candidates shows a weakness in the Democratic field.
A conservative could argue, with justification, that the rapidly expanding GOP presidential field is an indication that no one on the red squad fears facing Hillary Clinton next November.
There is a corollary to that which is proven over time: candidates who are perceived as strong tend to draw sparse, weak opposition. Take Nevada in 2014, where a fairly deep Democratic bench went into hiding at the prospect of challenging incumbent Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval. The field was so thin that, memorably, "none of the above" beat all comers in the Democratic gubernatorial primary. The net result, of course, was a disaster for Democrats in the Silver State.
So, given that corollary, it's not difficult for Republicans to trumpet their double-digit presidential roster as a sign that they find Hillary Clinton (or, in theory, one of the other Democratic contenders) eminently beatable. Democrats would counter that some of the GOP's younger stars could be angling for a respectable run in 2016 to set up 2020. And there may well be some truth to that. But it's hard to deny that Hillary Clinton, despite her talents, isn't chasing away any prospective GOP challengers.
HOW THIS PORTENDS REPUBLICAN DOOM: An equally credible argument, however, can be made that a large field is a sign that there is not a truly "strong" potential Republican nominee in the bunch.
After all, if there were a solid betting favorite in the mix, at least some of these "contenders" would keep their powder dry for now, willing to wait for a better window of opportunity. No one wants to run for president to run for second place, unless you buy the "auditioning for VP/Cabinet" theory.
It has become clear, however, that few of these candidates think there is an unbeatable candidate in the mix. To date, damned near no one has been dissuaded from throwing their hat into the ring.
There is another, far more practical, concern for the Republican Party. With such a gigantic field, the prospect of someone moving into the "front" of the pack with comparatively minimal support is plausible, and perhaps even likely. As Markos outlined a little over a week ago, Bernie Sanders can be seen as a novelty, but he has consolidated as much support within his party as virtually every contender on the Republican side has done in his or her own party.
The net result, potentially, is a nominee who earns the nod with minority support, and a raft of disappointed (if not hostile) partisans offering tepid support for the fall campaign. Really, that would be a fairly apt description of 2012, where all the GOP could hope for is that Mitt Romney would be propelled across the line not by Republican adoration for their nominee, but rather contempt for the incumbent Democrat. And there is also always the nightmare scenario for Republicans: a brokered convention, which could lead to a badly splintered coalition heading into the campaign's critical final months.
FACTOR #2: THE HILLARY FACTOR
If our readers follow a lot of conservative poll/election junkies on Twitter, you already know that most of them are in love with this chart:
And, to a certain extent, the numbers don't lie. The favorability ratings for Hillary Clinton have taken a noticeable slide over the past 12 months and are currently underwater (albeit barely) for the first time in years.
If one accepts the caveat that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee (and you don't have to, though the numbers are daunting for her challengers at present), then the dip in her popularity is definitely a source of concern and debate.
HOW THIS PORTENDS DEMOCRATIC DOOM: Clinton's comparably high unfavorable ratings, her supporters argue, stem from the fact that her quarter century-plus in the public eye means that she is universally known and universally defined. But her opponent on the GOP side almost certainly won't be. And therein lies a solid reason for Democratic anxiety.
Simply put, one of the most salient arguments against Clinton is that her "upside" is limited by the fact that, given her long tenure in public life, the number of persuadable voters for her are few and far between. By contrast, the bulk of the GOP field is still largely undefined. While only 6 percent of the electorate has neither a favorable nor an unfavorable opinion of Clinton, every Republican save for Jeb Bush and Chris Christie has at least a quarter of the electorate with no strong leaning either way.
Of course, that could cut both ways. While that could mean that the eventual GOP nominee will likely have an "upside" that could bring him or her home next November, it also means that he or she has a critical number of voters that can be persuaded negatively when the Democratic campaign begins in earnest and starts to define the GOP standard bearer.
HOW THIS PORTENDS REPUBLICAN DOOM: How can her weakening favorability numbers prove that the GOP is in trouble, you might ask? Well, the simple answer is to look elsewhere among the impressive array of Pollster graphics.
Hillary Clinton may be at parity in favorability ratings, but according to the Pollster averages, she leads all the leading GOP players in the field by margins ranging from 4-13 points. State polling has been similarly bullish on Clinton's prospects.
This, for what it is worth, should not be considered unusual. One of the things we tend to forget is that candidates with "meh" favorables win elections all the time. Recall how many Democrats felt confident that Kay Hagan would hold on in North Carolina last year, because Thom Tillis was underwater in his favorables. And, although the candidate wound up losing, remember how bad Jon Corzine's ratings looked in 2009, when he still came within three points of re-election against Chris Christie.
Favorability of a candidate is a factor in an election, but it is not the sole criteria for judging one's electability.
What's more: past history hints to us that Clinton's favorability stats are likely to be close to their low point. Looking back at the stats for past presidential nominees, we see that, at worst, they tended to hover around the political "Mendoza line" of equal numbers of favorable and unfavorable respondents. What this means, quite possibly is that Clinton, by being nearly universally known at the outset, may well have "maxed out" both her supporters and detractors.
So, clip and save this one. Come next November, you are likely to hear that the final outcome was unsurprising, because of one of the reasons outlined above. But the bottom line is that these "clear reasons" for electoral glory or doom just tell us a basic truth—we really do not have a clue what will happen in 2016. It is entirely possible that Hillary Clinton will bide her time waiting for the GOP royal rumble to conclude, and then easily vanquish the bloodied Republican nominee. But it is also possible that the long primary will positively define the Republican nominee (as it did for a Democratic nominee named Barack Obama in 2008), and insulate said nominee for the fall campaign, allowing the GOP to reclaim the White House. Hillary Clinton, should she become the nominee, may benefit from her tenure, as the long campaign does little to shake long-cemented sentiments.
It's early, of course, but untempered optimism in either camp seems premature.