In 2008, Clinton was the front-runner, but she was the first in a typically crowded field of challengers. She, Obama and John Edwards were top-tier candidates, but there were a bunch of other credible choices like Joe Biden and Bill Richardson (subsequent implosions of Edwards and Richardson notwithstanding).
Also, in 2008, the only high-level governmental office she had held was a relatively short stint as a Senator, meaning that other than Obama (who was also criticized for a thin resume), most everyone else in the race had better qualifications on paper than she did. Now, of course, having also served as a very active Secretary of State (in addition to having been First Lady, for what that is worth), nobody can claim that she is underqualified.
Here, she is in the position, unique for a non-incumbent, of having nobody in else race that is seen as a real challenger. Maybe Bernie Sanders will jump in, but come on. If O’Malley runs, he’s hoping of one of three things: (1) he gets name recognition for the next time around, (2) he gets the VP nod, or (3) something happens to Clinton and he’s the only person left standing. Yes, there is the chance that she will have a major health issue, but barring that, she’s the nominee.
Fellow Canuck and I’m right with you. The Republicans will have trouble fielding anyone who doesn’t have a variety of issues and it’s still mathematically impossible for them to win the Electoral College without some serious upsets. The Democrats don’t have anyone waiting in the wings even remotely comparable to Obama in terms of charisma and excitement factor. The nation is already used to the idea of there being a President Clinton.
Now my impression from Clinton vs. Obama was that Hillary’s ground game was somewhat lackadaisical compared to Obama’s hustling and grinding. If she’s learned that lesson (which I think she has) and if she can recruit some of his campaign people (which why not?) she will be unstoppable.
But the reason that Obama had the edge was he put together a better team than Hilary, one that played to his strengths (caucuses more than primaries) and understood the implications of the Democratic system where it wasn’t winner-take-all for the delegates.
There is some pressure among Democratic activists to keep Biden as the VP candidate this time, too.
Reasons:
he’s been there for a while, keeping him is seen as keeping the Obama legacy going, not rocking the boat.
good (neutral) public image; nobody hates him much.
well known to Hillary, they got along when she was SoS, no threat to her.
well known in Congress, gets along with them as well as anyone.
given his age, he won’t run after her, leaves the field open for any other Democrat who’s thinking of a post-Hilary run – no ‘designated successor’. So they’d support this.
his foot-in-mouth reputation is useful – he can float a trial balloon, easily deniable if it gets bad public reaction.
even easier to identify the Democratic candidates as the ‘experienced’ team.
Absolutely. Obama played a better game than Clinton and ran up the caucus states in a way she didn’t predict. Clinton also made some stupid errors during the campaign and let her sense of inevitability get the best of her – she had basically no plan on how to proceed after Super Tuesday since she thought it’d be over by then. Then Obama swept the board for the next month.
I trust that Clinton came away with some valuable lessons and will support her this time around but there seems to be a bit of remembering her performance better than it was.
IIRC the questioner (or translator) asked what “her husband” thought; this was corrected post-rant to what *President Obama *thought. I was never sure whether this was a genuine translation mistake or a face-saving “correction”, but it was trivial anyway.
On VPs: I wouldn’t mind seeing O’Malley in the running but given the predilection for some geographic spread a New York/Maryland ticket might seen as too East Coast-centered (I’m ignoring Arkansas for the purpose of this assessment). Schweitzer might be a much better bet on this criterion. O’Malley might serve better as the runner-up in case Clinton has any health issues in the next year, and even if he gets sidelined he’s only 52 and could use a run to build name recognition for a later one.
And dear god, let Uncle Joe retire. New York/Delaware is even worse anyway.
Huh? Charisma? Which Clinton are you thinking of again? She might be charismatic compared to John Kerry or Joe Biden, but that’s a pretty low bar to clear.
I think her age is going to be a factor, particulatly because she’s taking great pains to present herself as the new, improved, not-at-all-an-elitest Hillary. But she’s in her 70’s and a grandmother now. I suspect that a not-small number of people are going to pretty skeptical that an old dog can learn new tricks.
I don’t see any way she is denied the nomination. The only way she gets opposition in the primary is that someone steps up to be a sparring partner. In the general election, she benefits from the blue wall in the electoral map plus the pitiful cast of has-beens and never-will-bes that are passing for candidates on the GOP side.
Reading 538, Clinton is waaaaaay out in front of any potential primary rivals by several metrics, and they’re basically calling her a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination as long as she doesn’t bring herself down by accident. The general election is a much, much closer proposition, however - at present they’re calling it 50/50 (with the caveat that it’s very early in the game and the GOP field is much more unsettled at this point).
I’m not sure how much the VP’s home matters. It’s not as though Ryan delivered any of the Midwest for Romney (states Romney won like Indiana, he would have won regardless).
Right, at least since B. Clinton picked Gore and possibly earlier, it seems the choice of VP is rated by the public on how well that person is prepared for the top job. It also matters that the running mate is ideologically in sync with the nominee, and is not seen as simple pandering to a demographic. If there’s anything left to balance, it may be generational - a younger nominee like Obama benefits from an older (and hopefully wiser) hand, and an older one may benefit from the energy of a younger one (who could still be seen as a good candidate eight years later).
The Civil War is over enough by now (not yet entirely) that the Confederacy no longer needs to be pandered to in order to get votes there. That’s what “balancing the ticket” used to mean. Even if it was still the situation, the Democrats as currently constituted no longer need it, and the Republicans can take it for granted.
Some perspective in terms of all these other names that keep getting brought up: according to a poll I saw recently, the strongest alternative to Hillary by far would be Elizabeth Warren, who has just 18% support and isn’t running for probably just that reason. As hopelessly small as that is, none of the other candidates had even half that much.
It’s just amazing how often those basic principles are violated! It was hilariously glaringly obvious that Romney brought on a lunatic right-wing ideologue to prove that yes, he really was bat-shit crazy and not a moderate at all. And before that, McCain picked his brilliant running mate based on the winning principle “me want woman”. It made for pretty good comedy, not much else.
She might be charismatic compared to John Kerry or Joe Biden, but that’s a pretty low bar to clear.