Just a thought, considering Clinton should have beaten Obama 8 years ago with all of her advantages, what does it say if she loses this nomination to Sanders?
If we listened to CNN all day then Hillary is the anti-christ. Except that five thirty eight has a more realistic poll. They feel HRC has an 80% chance of taking Iowa. The reality is CNN wants to sell news.
America is more patriarchal than it is racist?
I don’t accept your premise. Obama was uniquely positioned to unite the white liberal “wine track” and the black vote, and still barely won.
The advantages Clinton had were money, recognition and experience. Obama countered that with raising donations via cell phones (a brilliant move), relying on personality rather than name-recognition and the fact that experience really didn’t matter in that election.*
- Many times I said I didn’t think Obama would make a good president because of his lack of experience as a Senator and no high-level state office experience e.g Governor. The common counter was “You’re saying that because he’s black.” Ummm no, it’s because he’s inexperienced white or black.
In addition to the other objections just above, you forget that politics is very situational. To win you need to not only be the right person, but you need to get there at the right time in history for who and what you are. Last of all that 8 years is a long time for people already in their 60s.
Damn near nobody makes a serious run at the White House, loses, then comes back 8 years later to do better. There are certainly perennial back-of-the-pack candidates, e.g. Kasich & Santorum on the right. It’s been awhile since we’ve had a perennial 5th-placer on the D side although Nader was for awhile before he got his own organization then exploded. Evidence shows people can and do run no-hope campaigns repeatedly.
But name somebody else who won their party’s nomination 8 years after coming second in a close race. Not too many of those out there.
I think this nomination is Hillary’s to lose. She could still drop the ball or have it taken from her by outside events. And if so what we’ll have learned is that its darn hard to come back from a loss after 8 years. IOW, she’ll be shown to be a rather typical example of a Presidential aspirant in the modern era since ~1900. Rather than a truly exceptional politician who can overcome losing 8 years ago, remaining in the limelight since then in meaningful roles with a real record to be either praised or attacked, AND having been deeply connected to Bill and his actions in office, both good and bad.
IF she can still climb that hill dragging that load, she’s evidently one heck of a politician. If not, she’s just an ordinary one. Not some kind of failure as you glibly suggest.
I’ve said elsewhere that as a theoretical matter I’m not fond of political dynasties. There have already been enough years of Clintons and too many years of Bushes and Roosevelts. And way too many Congressmens’ kids and grandkids are now in Congress.
Well, Nixon (1960 and 1968) is one. Then there’s Bush (1980 and 1988). Gore had a 12 year gap. McCain went in eight years from losing the nomination to winning it, so that’s better.
Nader ran as a write-in in the 1992 Democratic NH primary before his third party runs, but that is rather different from what you are describing. Santorum only ran one other time that I know of, and he wasn’t “back-of-the-pack” last time.
In fact, I have been surprised how few people have noted that a long tradition on the GOP side is apparently being broken this year, barring a sudden miracle. That is, in the modern era (when the nomination has actually been largely decided by the primaries and caucuses, starting in 1972) normally whoever comes in second in the GOP primary race in one cycle becomes the nominee the next time, if he runs. Reagan was second to Ford; GHW Bush was second to Reagan; Dole was second to GHW Bush; Buchanan didn’t run in the GOP primaries in 2000, so newcomer GW Bush won; McCain was second to GW Bush; Romney was second to McCain. That is quite a streak, and if it continued Santorum would be the nominee this time 'round.
Brian Beutler has a great piece on the arguments in Clinton vs. Sanders:
Realclearpolitics.com says Clinton +0.6 in the polling average. O’Malley makes up several times the difference between Clinton and Sanders.
538 has a great track record, but they themselves have cautioned that things might actually be different this time.
The other problem for Sanders is that like Trump, he’s dependent on people who haven’t been reliable voters:
You don’t really think Hillary’s losing to Sanders, do you? She could lose both Iowa and New Hampshire but she’ll run the table after that. There are people who give Bernie a chance in Nevada, South Carolina, Florida, North Carolina? Maybe Wisconsin, but by then the juggernaut will have run him down, and there’s still Pennsylvania and California after that.
Yeah, really … why bother to have the election? :dubious: