Yeah, now CNN and the New York Times are walking back their stories. In all likelihood this story saw life in the GOP spin machine, a path that usually looks something like this: congressional staffer → conservative blogger → conservative media → mainstream media. It's really quite brilliant, when you think of it, and from a gamesmanship point of view I cannot help but admire the results. The Republicans are much better at getting out their message, and staying ON message, than Democrats. One of the qualities that has made the Clintons such an effective political force is their ability to stay on message.
Bottom line: To win an American presidential election you need 3 things:
- Money. The 2012 election cost $2 billion. Two billion dollars. And since there has never been a modern presidential election that was less expensive than the one before it, we can safely assume the '16 race will cost more. It takes an absurd amount of money to run for president. More money than most of us (by which I mean most human beings, not just most of us here on this forum) would see in a hundred lifetimes, just to do that one thing. It's ridiculous, and a subject I have written about at length, so I won't go into a lengthy diatribe here. The point is merely to illustrate the incredible cost of running for president. In each party there are only so many sources that can reliably be tapped for large scale donations, and in the Democrats' case Hillary Clinton already has most of those sources locked up. Money will literally be no object for her.
- Expertise. You need top notch advisers, pollsters, and political staff. Again, in each party there are only a limited pool of qualified, experienced people. The best ones get gobbled up fast. Hillary Clinton already has them on staff.
- Organization. The much-mythologized "ground game," but its importance cannot be overstressed. These are the local and regional offices that do the lion's share of the work of getting their candidate elected. You know that college students favor you 2 to 1 over your opponent — who is going to make sure the students at Suchandforth Community College get out and vote? As Tip O'Neil famously said, all politics is local. Never is that more true than in a presidential election, and organization is the key. The Clintons already had one of the best organizations in the business, and Hillary's burgeoning campaign has attracted top minds from Obama's legendary organization as well.
Realistically you need the endorsement of one of the two major parties as well, but this list assumes that. These are the things you need just to win the nomination of one of those parties. It's the price of admission to the big leagues.
So here's what will happen on the Democratic side next year:
Hillary Clinton will run (duh). She will come in as the frontrunner and will remain so for the duration of the primary campaign, although one or more of her opponents might surge enough to make her nervous. She will have the nomination locked up by April.
Bernie Sanders will run, not because he seriously believes he has any chance of becoming president (although how awesome would that be?), but as an "issues candidate." His entire reason for being there will be to frame the debate, and he will hammer away at themes like corporate taxation, income inequality, and the influence of money in politics. He will stand with Hillary Clinton, the archetypal establishment candidate, on debate stages in Iowa and New Hampshire and talk about things that no one talks about in the mainstream media. If you follow him on Facebook or Twitter you know exactly what I mean. This will prove to be enormously popular and his numbers may surge, especially in New Hampshire (he is from neighboring Vermont, after all). It is not inconceivable that he could win the New Hampshire primary. All of this will have the effect of pushing Hillary Clinton to the left.
Martin O'Malley, former governor of Maryland, will run. In fact, like the Hilldog, he is essentially already doing so, although he has made no formal announcement. Most of you probably have never heard of O'Malley, and that's a problem. But not an insurmountable one — there was a time, after all, when no one had heard of Bill Clinton. And O'Malley has a lot more credibility as a candidate than Bernie Sanders. For one thing, he's not 73. For another, he does not have a public image as a "fringe" politician like Sanders, who describes himself as a "socialist" (imagine how that will go over in Flyover America). O'Malley was a successful governor of an industrial northern state, and Americans seem to prefer governors in the Oval Office. He is much more left-leaning than Hillary Clinton, and his electability might make him seem like a more palatable alternative to Bernie Sanders. His problem will be the three things listed above, especially money. But he has the potential to seriously threaten Clinton, and might even beat her in a few states, such as Virginia (a Super Tuesday primary). In the end I do not think he will be able to raise the money that would be necessary to overcome Clinton's powerful advantages, but in the right circumstances (say, if Clinton seriously stumbled) he has a shot. Look for him to be on Clinton's short list for VP. In fact, that might be exactly what he's angling for.
Elizabeth Warren will not, I think, run. She has been pretty adamant about this any time she has been asked, which is a lot. However, she has made some recent comments that suggest at least a chink in the armor. Surely she has considered it. Like Sanders, I'm not sure that she would do it expecting to win, but more likely with the idea of influencing the national debate and, eventually, party platform. I hope she does not do so. I love Elizabeth Warren, and I am proud to say that she is my senator, but I do not think she is ready for play at this level. Her race against Scott Brown was closer than many people realize (53.7% to 46.2% for Brown) in a presidential election year in which the incumbent was not only popular in Massachusetts, but running against the most hated former governor in the state's history. Warren raised $39 million, more than any other senate candidate that year, and had the full backing of the state and national party organizations. She should have trounced him, but she did not, and had the Brown campaign done a better job of getting out the vote in a few key areas he might have won. Warren was not that great as a candidate. She has said some brilliant things, but she also has a tendency to be preachy and pedantic in a way that many people will associate negatively with childhood memories of the teacher who always gave too much homework. A presidential election, especially against a candidate as formidable as Hillary Clinton, is a lot more challenging than a senate run in which you have all the money in the world and everyone backing you. Plus Warren's politics are really not all that different from Bernie Sanders' so they would be drawing votes from the same pool. Given all this, her running would serve no purpose. But the idea of running fro president has its own allure that is difficult for anyone who is not in that position to imagine. Despite all my reservations, I cannot deny that Elizabeth Warren is one of a very small group of people who actually have a chance of becoming president. So that puts her one up on me. The temptation may be too strong. If she were to run, I do not believe Elizabeth Warren could defeat Hillary Clinton, but as with Sanders and O'Malley her presence could drive Clinton to the left.
Do you see a theme here? Hillary Clinton is going to move to the left.
She will be free to do this because of two factors. One is that the United States is a much more progressive country today than it was even ten years ago, much less when her hubby was in office. Legalized weed? Gay marriage? These things were unheard of in 1995. Today they are reality in many places, and both are likely to be the law of the land soon (expect a lot of states to pass legalization referendums in 2016). Young Americans are not shocked by the mere concept of "socialism" they way their parents and grandparents were, and those grandparents are dying off fast. Consider: Kids that were 10 years old when Barack Obama was elected will be voting for his successor. It's a brave new world, and that which was once radical is now mainstream. In political terms, this means it is not "dangerous" for politicians to be seen to lean too far to the left the way it once was.
The other factor that will give Hillary Clinton room to move left is the Republican nominee. All of the major contenders describe themselves as conservatives, although some have more street cred than others. Of the top tier likelies, probably the least conservative is Jeb Bush, and this is a guy who was born in a grey pinstriped suit. He at least is relatively mainstream in his politics, and would offer Clinton the least amount of space on the left. The rest of the GOP A-team are dyed-in-the-wool conservatives in the Tea Party colors: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee. Of these, Paul has the most advantages going in, with good name recognition and high favorability ratings among the conservatives who usually vote in primaries. He also has plenty of money, inasmuch as he is a bought and paid-for tool of the Koch bros. Many libertarians would no doubt be surprised (not to mention disappointed) to learn just how deeply their hero is in the establishment's pocket. No doubt they will do so during the course of this race. Even so, the very depth of those pockets may prove too much of an advantage for the others to overcome. But in a way it doesn't matter. Other than Jeb Bush, any of the ones I mentioned would be too extreme for a general election, and would give Hillary Clinton (or any Democratic nominee) plenty of room to — wait for it — move to the left.
I realize this was a formidable wall of text, but I don't make these predictions lightly or glibly. Obviously you can't "call" an election this far out. November 8, 2016 is 606 days away as of this writing, and 606 days is a loooonnngg time in politics. Anything could happen. But assuming trends continue on the path they have been following, the most likely outcome is that Hillary Clinton will become the 45th President of the United States. This is not to say that I am in favor of this occurring, merely that I believe it is likely. If there is one thing life has taught me it is that "what I want" and "what actually happens" are two separate and often very different sets of events. Heh.
If it were up to me, Bernie sanders would be elected president with Elizabeth Warren as his VP. Now that would be glorious!
