In 2008, Barack Obama wrapped up the delegates he needed to be the Democratic nominee at a shockingly early point in the campaign, which is something that Al Giordano and I never tired of pointing out. Our analyses of how the delegate system worked proved correct, as even a very strong finish by Hillary Clinton did nothing to improve her chances. She was finished before she knew what hit her. That didn’t keep her and her most ardent supporters from fighting, however. I found their detachment from reality irritating and their attacks on Obama to be dangerous fodder for any eventual Republican nominee to use against us.
On this latter point, I was wrong. It definitely helped, for example, to get the Jeremiah Wright controversy thoroughly aired during the primaries so that it was old news by the general election. Looking back, it’s very easy to see how much Obama improved as a debater over the course of the primary campaign, which benefited him greatly when he had to go toe-to-toe with John McCain. And, very importantly, Clinton’s refusal to give up forced Team Obama to organize in almost every state in the union, which probably put him over the top in both North Carolina and Indiana in November. Clinton’s interminable campaign didn’t just air the dirty laundry early and help Obama perform in debates, it probably led directly to him winning two states against McCain. The competitive primaries and caucuses also boosted Democratic voter registration and engagement all across the country. In retrospect, it’s hard to see any negatives, and certainly I can’t see any negatives that would outweigh the benefits for Obama and the party as a whole.
Maybe Brian Beutler is right that there has never been a failed Senate candidate who looked back and wished that they’d had a spirited primary to help lift them to victory, but there have been some successful ones who credit strong challengers for improving their chances in the general. And I think President Obama would acknowledge all the things I listed above. Anyone who is saying that Hillary Clinton needs a strong primary challenger to toughen up her calluses is only looking at part of the picture.
Beutler makes an important point that Clinton, like any Broadway star, needs an understudy in case she literally or figuratively breaks a leg. Choose your analogy about eggs and baskets, or whatever suits your fancy. But most people who want a challenge to Clinton actually want an alternative to Clinton. Then there’s another group that wants their particular interests to be aired in the campaign, either because they want to influence Clinton or because they think their issues are popular and will help Clinton win by improving the Democratic brand. Finally, there’s the group that thinks Clinton needs to work her way through the answers to tough questions about her record in a primary so that she doesn’t get ambushed in September.
All of these things matter. I’d argue that voter engagement, voter registration, and party building matter a lot, too.
What are the upsides of a waltz to the Philadelphia nominating stage with only nominal competition? Maybe she’ll have more money to play with in the general, but even that can be exaggerated.
On the whole, a real nomination fight would be a good thing, and not simply because Clinton needs an understudy.
On the other hand, the Republican clown show has just begun. If there’s nothing happening on the Democratic side, all the focus is going to be on the Republican candidates trying to out-buffoon each other for the next year or so. Then Jeb Bush or whoever it is will have to figure out how to walk back his promise to outlaw abortion in all cases except for illegal aliens, for whom it will be mandatory. (Hey, it worked for Netanyahu.)
Then all Clinton has to do in the meanwhile is go around acting sane and decent and more or less human.
Of course, my own position is that I want a real nomination fight because I don’t want Clinton. But if that’s the basket our eggs are in, then let’s focus on winning Congress.
Well yes, I’d like to see a meaningful Dem primary campaign, but it’s hard to see where it’s coming from. The opposition so far seems pretty token. Enough to have a couple of debates, but it looks to be over fast.
It’s a lot to ask of somebody to raise almost a hundred million dollars and work their butt off for 2 years just to toughen up Hillary and be her understudy. That’s why we’re getting second-string candidates like Chaffee and Webb and issue-raisers like Sanders. O’Malley is the only top-tier candidate who really seems to be in it. Even Biden doesn’t seem to have his heart in it.
That said, we do have what you want – an opportunity for spirited debates with Hillary, O’Malley, Sanders, Biden, Schweitzer, and Webb, and at least two plausible understudies. If you’re looking for somebody to have a decent chance against Hillary without her having an unbelievable meltdown or a stroke – well, sorry, they don’t exist. She’s just too popular with Democratic voters and Democratic politicians and Democratic contributors. She has about as much of an advantage as incumbents have and when is the last time an incumbent President lost a nomination they contested?
and you can guarantee her health is 100% ? her health appears to be a weak point. and O”Malley will presumably either be vp or run again. A debate among those you listed will draw attention to the candidates and the issues. it’s a win win situation for democrats
I think she is too old to be president just like Biden is, but I haven’t heard anything about health issues. I am more concerned about health issues with Bill derailing her campaign.
Also not aware of any health issues wrt Hillary, but doesn’t surprise me in the least that this gets raised as if it’s a fact.
Bill’s health worries me more than Hillary’s, by the looks of the two. He seems haggard and drained. I wonder if he went a bit too severely into that vegan diet Chelsea recommended. That’s probably something that doesn’t work for everyone, maybe not even most Earthlings. And I don’t expect him to be quite on such a long leash this time. Her campaign should be much better organized, with someone there able to tell Bill where he should show up and what to say, with far fewer of those possibly problematic chats with the press.
Biden didn’t he have a brain aneurism back in the early 90s? His health might be at issue, or should be, more than Hillary’s.
But starting out as president in your 70s, the VP has to be someone younger (at least by a decade), and ready and able to take over.
it’s a bootrib discussion since DerFarm, who supports her strongly, wrote about it several years back. it’s not discussed in the media to my knowledge.
He’s been eating meat for some time now.
He does look really haggard though. That coupled with him saying he is going to stay in background this time makes me think he can’t handle full campaign schedule.
So if she somehow collapses, we’ve got Eliz Warren waiting to come in from the bullpen, and she’s unlikely to deny desperate pleas from the party at that point to save us. Or Joseph R. “Joe” Biden, already seasoned, warmed up and capable of carrying the load immediately. A Joe/Liz ticket would be a winner.
A quiet week or 10 days of political boot camp for Warren — mostly on FP, but also going over and over some of the tough challenges of a grueling fall campaign — should cover any shortcomings. Even better if most of that could be done quietly by her, as Hillary campaigns, in anticipation of being a major surrogate speaker for Clinton in the fall, or even as VP material.
A true nomination fight I think would be too risky, as it would threaten to split and demoralize the party and possibly draw too much blood from the frontrunner.
and how well will that work out? we need a candidate ready “in case she collapses”. and Elizabeth Warren doesn’t want to run. she’s doing great in the senate.
Well first, as i understand it, Warren doesn’t want to run because Hillary is running, someone she expects to be able to strongly support. But if H falters for any reason, that takes away Warren’s rationale for not running.
Second, the party and grassroots would bring tremendous pressure to bear on her to step in to save the situation, pressure she’s unlikely to be able to withstand (assuming she even puts up much resistance). With the boot camp, and some further continuing tutoring, the former Harvard prof should be fine.
Third, Biden, another major who’s not running because Hillary is, is the obvious other alternative, and ready to go on day one of the campaign. No need for him to understudy.
Now, if these things need to be decided at the convention, well, I believe ours is being held in July, giving us plenty of time to stabilize the situation and go forward strong and united in the fall. Plus we might have a lively convention to watch for a change, if the Biden forces battle it out with the Warren backers. But unlike Chicago, no blood in the streets this time.
I haven’t heard anything about Warren not running because Hillary is running. I have only heard and read that she doesn’t want to/ plan to run. Has she said anything along those lines? that she run after Hillary? I read a lot of people pressuring her to run [DFA for example] but none of her refusals sound like “I’ll run a few years from now”, I’ve only read, “no, I’m not running.” Second, running for prez isn’t something one can do “because other ppl need her” – it takes tremendous commitment and personal drive to become prez and not something that academics necessarily excell at. we have candidates with that drive, O”Malley for example and the others. To get someone who is not campaigning to step in for the good of the citizenry at a late date is a formula for dem loss. Biden, of course, could because he’s run for prez before, he’s known, he’s a long time politician not a long time academic.
That’s how I (and most observers) interpret her remarks that she does not intend to run. That she expects H to run, she expects to support her. And had H signaled clearly that she wouldn’t run this time, Warren might well be more open to the idea.
In a crisis scenario as outlined in the post, Warren would be under tremendous pressure to step in, far more pressure than was exerted on her to run for the senate.
It wouldn’t be ideal at that point that she was rather inexperienced, just that the party desperately needed her, Biden didn’t inspire/would be too gaffe prone, and there was a good chance she could win. If the chances were nil or nearly nil — as with party pleas to Teddy to be on the McG ticket as VP in 1972 — then she’d be likely to get away with not running. But a Dem ticket, even one occurring under the unusual circumstances of this scenario, with Warren at the top would have to still be considered good chances to win.
Biden of course, depending on his convention delegate support, might well be better positioned with his experience and backing among centrist establishment party leaders, to decide things in his favor. But the popular momentum would be for Warren not Biden.
As for the others, like Walter O’Malley, Jimmy Webb, or the Bolo Tie Coal Guy from Montana, I don’t see any of them getting any traction for the nomination even under the emergency scenario. VP maybe for O’Malley or Bolo.
well no. not everyone wants to be president. it’s possible she said she’s not running because she wants to serve our country via the Senate (think, Ted Kennedy), and she’s responsible enough not to step in if she really doesn’t want to run even if Hillary has problems down the road. the bolo tie guy has a degree in agronomy and speaks Arabic. he’d open up the mountain states constituency btw.
Well Ted K … he did run, in 1980. Probably would have run earlier, in 1972 or 76, but for that prior incident. And other considerations — like assassination, and the fact he’d been trying to act as surrogate father to the children of his two murdered brothers. Warren doesn’t have remotely those concerns. She would likely answer the call of her party in the above scenario. If not, she would be a seriously diminished political force thereafter.
As for Bolo, Walter and the rest: until they show me they have game, I’m going to continue to have some fun. I don’t doubt some of them might score a point or two in the debates — no one is saying they are stupid — but will any of that matter?
I guess I don’t see on what basis you think Warren would run. why doesn’t “no” mean “no”? and the party would be more likely to call on O”Malley, who has been working towards a run for years and is prepared, rather than commit electoral suicide by “drafting” a candidate who continues to say she won’t run and hasn’t expressed any interest in running for president.
On the basis of party pressure from above and below, a significant amount. Media firestorm type of pressure too. If reluctant, I can see a party elder like Harold Reid along with Barney Frank and others — realizing the public voice clearly is calling for her and not Biden — going to her and quietly convincing her to put country ahead of personal preferences.
Persuade her she can then be in a position to effectuate so many of the issues she cares about. Along those lines. Doubt if Reid would even have to play the alternative negative scenario card of diminished influence and no longer a rising star in the party.
Biden would obviously be a backup to the backup in this scenario. Again, unless he is brilliant and dynamic in the primaries, I don’t see a place for O’Malley except as VP.
that worked for Pope Gregory the Great
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm
but he was elevated by a few guys. it could work for a general in a war, for example, but the general needn’t appeal personally to the soldiers; it doesn’t work when someone is required to campaign 24 7 for months on end and appeal to voters with sincerity. one must want it, and she has expressed no desire to do that.
I fail to see how you can so easily dismiss her bowing to party pressure in the hypothetical, dire political situation described in the initial post. We’re not talking about her stance now — of that I am certain she will not run, with Hillary in the race. But in our hypothetical? She bowed to pressure to run before for the senate. In our fictional situation, the pressure would be a thousand times greater.
Campaign also shorter, assuming she begins to run not long after the party convention. No longer than she spent running for the senate, probably far less in fact.
Extremely rare are the senators who don’t aspire to the highest office, the place where senators soon realize they can be most effective. Probably most of the ones who didn’t seriously aspire knew they had some personal/political barriers that would absolutely prevent it. No such barriers present for Elizabeth Warren.
She’s been a Senator for all of two years — and this is her first job as an elected representative. She’s demonstrated that she’s a hard worker and competent in the public policy arena that she’s staked out for herself. She’s also soon to be 65 years old and has no interest in running for President.
Perhaps if she’d started her political career a decade or so earlier and could now see that she’d be more effective in her area of expertise as POTUS instead of a Senator, she might be interested. As it is, she’s making a meaningful contribution as a Senator and would like to continue with her work.
I’m all in favor of drafting a qualified candidate to run for POTUS, but in today’s world, can’t put the cart before the horse. Step one is gathering financial pledges to mount a campaign. Minimum $100 million for the primaries and at least another $100 million as seed money for a general election. Then select the best candidate from a preliminary short list of experienced politicians that would be first rate candidates and good Presidents.
Warren might be on my hypothetical short list but not at the top of it.
yes, well summarized. and add that her background is academics. Wilson was a university administrator. most academics only tolerate administration
Talking past each other it seems. I’ve been considering the situation of the hypothetical suggested in the opening post where Hillary’s campaign has been fatally injured or derailed to where a replacement is clearly needed, which backup would be found likely at the convention in July. A few of you seem to be considering only her present stance, which I agree is firm, of no-run.
Warren and Biden would likely be the top two names mentioned to compete for delegates, and in this fictional scenario Warren agrees to run and captures the nom. She only agrees to run, imo, in such hypothetical dire political situations for the party. The fundraising would be no problem for her. The enthusiasm would be tremendous. And with a July convention, she has extra time before the fall heat up campaign to smooth over some of her rough edges, as with FP. A younger but more experienced pol is named as VP. Bolo or Walter come to mind.
Btw marie, who is the person you would put on top of your short list?
I think you overestimate the support for Warren in citizenry as a whole. yes, when asked, ppl support her positions on behalf of middle class, but to my knowledge she is not well known nor is she well-connected politically (unlike O’Malley, who has been supporting campaigns for his fellow democrats for years).
Also, you’re talking about July 2016, that’s 15 months away. Finally, I just don’t get how you think a reluctant candidate could go the distance in a presidential campaign. Ike was a general, for FSM’s sake, a presidential campaign was nothing (esp in the 50’s) compared to an actual battle campaign. And Stevenson lost, btw. We cannot afford to lose the presidency in 2016.
Warren is far better known among Dem grassroots compared to Walter. And well known and liked among party regulars, the people who’d be deciding on the nominee in our hypothetical scenario.
It’s possible Walter could improve his name recognition in the coming months, but first, what’s his issue? Warren is already known for hers, fighting economic inequality and Wall St. And Walter’s?
She also has a winning personality, is articulate and smart. Low key but not boring. A quiet charisma. Walter, from what little I’ve seen, just strikes me as quiet.
As for reluctance, that largely melts away faced with a crisis situation for the party and country in our hypothetical. I think she would step up and be an enthusiastic, capable nominee for what is basically only a 3-4 month race. She would have avoided the long grind of the primaries. So, very doable. But, alas, only in our hypothetical. For now and unless/until Hillary badly stumbles, she’s not running.
This discussion would be better in a wider and more focused forum.
A diary is a better place to hold it because they don’t scroll off the FP as quickly and the threads don’t get as long. How about I start one in a couple of days that we could contribute to over a period of a few weeks?
Like Errol, I don’t have much patience for Democrats holding up IKE as some sort of precedent. There are historical differences between the two parties as to who they consider as viable presidential material. Ike wasn’t as reluctant as the mythology would have us believe. He campaigned in the NH primary and that first primary was largely irrelevant back then. He fought hard against Taft throughout the entire primary season and they entered the convention with close to the same number of delegate votes.
Who’s at the top of my short list? I know who I like the most, but maybe further review of past elections and more thought wouldn’t lead me to put that person at the top of my list. I’m still thinking.
do we really want someone to run who doesn’t want to run but just bows to party pressure? but I don’t think she would, since she hasnt bowed to wall st or the banks
Forget your popes. In American history, reluctant types have been persuaded to run, in far less dire circumstances than presented here.
Ike was reluctant, after being approached allegedly by Pres Truman. And that was with HST agreeing to take the second spot with Ike at the top of the ticket. But a few years later, he was prevailed upon to run and did.
Adlai Stevenson in ’52 famously had to almost be horsewhipped by Truman before agreeing to run. And after that, he couldn’t stop running.
RFK throughout 67 and early 68 kept saying no no no to a run. Then in mid-March, when circumstances politically had changed, he decided to run.
Yes, one must want it. But it helps a lot in the wanting it if the ultimate goal is made a little less difficult or impossible. Hillary now makes that a difficult goal to reach for Warren. But without her in the race in our hypothetical, the big prize is easily within reach for EW. And she would want it because getting the prize means all those issues she cares about for ordinary people are that closer to being realized. I suspect she’d want that.
An overly simplistic question. Is there anything objectionable about Bernie Sanders as President besides his age?
He seems to have inundated the pages of the internet with his gems of daily wisdom and he is charming the ‘Likes’ out of the grassroots socks.
Other than the fact that there is no way this country will elect a self-avowed socialist to the Presidency, not a whole lot.
lol, you’re right of course. But his pearls of wisdom seem to cross lines with lots of nods of agreement.
state and has never run a competitive campaign, and he has the charisma of a potted plant. Other than that, he seems like a great idea.
Yeah he’s old, yeah he’s not a Dem but that seems to make him more listen able…
agree with all of what you write, Booman. And look how attention=getting the contested primary was last time. all kinds of press about the candidates. seems to me a win win situation.
This is so depressing that I can’t bring myself to tell you how horrible it is. 15/16 months before the conventions and some 18 months before the elections. Is this ‘normal’? She’ll just suck attention while the world keeps rotting. My call is that she will not realize her fanatical ambition but I can’t tell you what will happen. Unfortunately I’m often wrong. However you look at, Obama stand head and shoulders above her in intellect, conviction and communicative abilities. She’s nowhere, never has been, never will be. She could barely handle the job as Secretary of State and she has the arrogance to assume that she’s up to the presidency. The repaginates who have come forward so far are too weird for words and it doesn’t seem that alternatives exist. Any repugnant who could be taken seriously would defeat Clinton in a landslide, even McJerk could or Junior (not Jebb`). I think I’m tuning out on all this at this point. I’m a bit older than Clinton and want to enjoy myself, she evidently finds herself too important for that.
Hear, hear. Let’s keep some faith in the unexpected.
The 2008 Democratic primary and subsequent general election win is a data point, and models built from a single data point are rarely correct.
There have been long and hard fought primaries where the nominee didn’t go on to win the general election. (And sometimes the second place finisher didn’t withdraw until the convention.) Also some short primaries where the nominee did win. The current nomination process based on state primaries and caucuses isn’t that old. Less than fifty years; so, there aren’t all that data points to work with. Factor in if it’s an open seat for the Presidency and which party and for how long holds it as of election day and the number of data points is even fewer. Beginning with 1968, next year will only be the fifth time that the office is open. And only the second time a sitting VP hasn’t been running for it. (Assuming Biden doesn’t run.)
Win or lose, any challenger to Clinton that ISN’T an alternative to Clinton isn’t a real challenge.
You may think of another candidate as simply a sparring partner, but if that candidate is an attractive alternative and gains popularity, he or she can turn into a genuine challenge.