Hillary Won't Run
Andrew Cory
Let's start with the most obvious fact about Senator Clinton: She's a Senator. Senators do not win the presidency. Ex Senators can run and win. Senators can become Vice presidents and have their presidents die, and then become president. But Senators become President roughly as often as Presidents win a third term... Senators become Vice Presidents.
The next, though slightly less obvious, fact about Sen. Clinton: She's the wife of Former President Clinton. I am opposed to all forms of Dynastic succession, (one of the reasons that I voted against Bush) and if the wife (or husband, for that matter) of a former president runs, I'll look really hard at her opponent. If that opponent has policies which are only slightly worse than the dynastic choice, well-- dynasty is bad. I can't be the only person to feel that way...
Furthermore: Sen. Clinton has spent around a decade in the national eye. She at this point has a large anti-fan base dedicated to hating her. Indeed, at this point around one third of the country would view her ascension to the Whitehouse as a non-hyperbolic proof that the end times are upon us. When you start off with a big, fat one of every three voters hating you, there isn't much room to lose any more. Any prospective opponent wouldn't even have to tell anyone to go on the attack, the stories would write themselves. Or, does no one else remember the job the New York Times did on Sen. Clinton's Husband?
Add it all up and Sen. Clinton can't possibly win. Since that is manifestly the case, why on Earth would she run? Hillary won't run in 2008. You read it here first...
The first observation has minor merit. These are like pointless sports statistics that leave announcers looking foolish when proved that they are over-generalizations.
The second observation is obviously false since we basically have had a Bush dynasty split by a Clinton interlude.
The third observation is incomplete. A large hate base doesn't rule you out, depending on the nature of the dynamics. Someone like Hillary can heavily polarize an elecorate. So, if you are right that 1/3 of people out-and-out hate her, and if we assume that each person's perception of her is very "love-hate-ish", that would leave 2/3 that out-and-out love her. That would be a win by my count. Now, I will admit that it heavily depends on the state of the electorate vis-a-vis her candidacy.
Seeing only the haters would be like looking just at the tail of the elephant.
Anyway, his observation about "Senators don't get elected" is not like those inane sports stats. In fact, they don't. Part of the reason is that they have a very explicit, very traceable record on national issues, and usually a very partisan one, too. By contrast, governors either can skirt national issues or are frequently in a situation where greater moderation is politically possible.
The second point, far from being "obviously false," is almost certainly true. He said he doesn't like political dynasties, and that "other people must feel that way." If your point is that it's obviously false that this is a big factor, why do you suppose Jeb Bush isn't running? It is arguably possible, in fact, that the GHWB / GWB experience will sour some people on the experience, or that they will feel after eight years of Clinton and twelve years of Bush, that a change of last names is in order.
We agree about the third point. I am inclined to say this does matter in a tight race. I don't think too many people started out hating Kerry; he had to earn that (and he did). But to start out with a ton of people who hate you? In fact, my observation is that, far from being a "gimme" on the women's vote, a lot of women hate her -- in part, because they have achieved on their own merit, not by riding the coattails of a succesful and yet abusive (so to speak) husband while declaiming feminist values; in part, because she is just so shrill.
I can tell you this much: The GOP, far from fearing Hillary, is licking its chops at the prospect of her candidacy.
Vice Presidents almost never go on to be elected President, either, unless they first win the Presidency due to a vacancy. This due mostly to a fact that they're seen as weak, as terminal "second bananas." George H.W. Bush was one of only two sitting Vice Presidents who was ever elected President.
Now note the irony of 1960: A sitting Vice President and a sitting Senator were running against each other. That was the last sitting Senator who was elected straight to the White House: Kennedy, and it was one of the closest elections in history (with some maintaining still that Nixon really won it).
Kennedy had some things going for him though, not least of which was that he had a SHORT voting record. He missed lots of votes, had only been in the Senate for one and a half terms, and was running against someone who had a similarly weak resume. Nixon had spent 4 years as a Congressman, 2 as a senator, and 8 as Vice President.
Clinton is smart and she knows everything Andrew is saying. I still think she may run, but he's right that she must realize all this. Then again, she's already an exception in many important ways....
I once heard a historian interviewed on NPR who'd studied the concept of American political dynasties. He'd looked at it carefully and found that at any given moment no more than 2-5% or so of all sitting politicians are from families that could be considered to have political "dynasties." Just looking at the Presidency, we've only had two Presidents whose son went on to be President, and one President whose grandson did. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt were related, although fairly distantly. Ohio's governor, Robert Taft, is the son of Senator Taft and grandson of William Howard Taft. Those are the only big ones I can think of.
In short, he concluded that dynasties aren't particularly common, nor do they usually wind up being all that powerful.
Still, some people are very against the concept. I don't really know how much that would hurt her in this case. It did hurt George W. a little when he first ran, obviously.
To answer your points,
1.Hillary won't be Senator in 2008 unless she runs for re-election. (although I don't think her being a senator is really a minus as discussed below.)
2.I believe she became a senator only to gain elective office to forestall any "you never won an election" arguments in the run-up to a presidential election.
2A. This means that she has been voting with an eye on how it will look in a presidential run.
It doesn't matter that much that she is a Senator because of 2A above and also because she's not known for being a Senator. She's known as being a co-president. Most senators who've run have lengthy records (Kerry) or not enough of a record (Edwards). Kennedy was lucky in that he had name recognition (in New England anyway), was a hero and had a very short record as a senator. Hillary falls in between. She has experience with the presidency and will pound that point over and over.
3. Yes, she does have a huge hate-gallery. She also has a huge love-gallery. How do you think she won the election in NY? The two biggest reasons were a weak opponent and name recognition. She almost totally avoided the press. There was one incident where somebody asked her a real question, not a Mr. Burns love-a-thon type question. That was it. The reporter was attacked and nobody ever asked her another question. I see record turnout if Hillary runs as both her supporters and detractors come out in droves.
And don't forget the co-presidency. You will see such a huge mass of 90s nostalgia over the "Golden Years of Billary" and how we now have a chance to bring them all back and then we can pretend that all that unpleasantness of neo-con warmongers is over. The NY Times would be constantly writing all about how it was so much better when Billary were in charge.
Her ego is huge. Bill obviously is always thinking about how the future will remember him, (legacy anyone?) and I think that she has the same eye on history. Hillary, the first woman president.
I'm not saying she will win, or even win the party's nomination, but...Be afraid, be very afraid.
As I said above, think of it as the continuation of the Golden Age of Billar... errr, America.
Just in case, though, it would be an excellent idea for the RNC to start storyboarding ads that showcase the most scary Shrillary moments--starting with her "vast right wing conspiracy" babbling--and getting ready to dump them on her like a ton of bricks when the time comes.
At the moment, I'm not making any bets. I'm just keeping my powder dry.
Dynasties don't really mean much to me either way. They have to get elected just like anyone else, so I don't see them as anything particulary powerful or sinister. I'd like to think the people of Mass. were under some strange hypnotic effect that compels them perpetuate the Kennedy dynasty. But, no, they don't really have that excuse. If I someday vote for another Bush I'll be because I like the candidate, not because I liked his father/brother/uncle/etc.
That aside, on Hillary: I agree with those who say she has clearly created a hawkish, but otherwise moderate, record as a Senator. This would serve her well if she were to run.
Of all the Democrats who might possibly run, my choice would be Montana's new Governor, but it's probably too soon for him (he was only just elected). Second choice is Bill Richardson, New Mexico's current governor. If he ran, I might even campaign for him.
Also, Mr. Alphadog, if you really want to see my scholarly work (and be bored by it!), I can post one of the papers I am working on for Poli.-Sci. Right now, I am doing one on judge stacking...
Have you read Mark Levin's new book "Men in Black?"
One of the joys of working in a bookstore is the cheep access to just about everything in print. And when the book happens to be a bestseller, and when I happen to work at the register (near the bestseller spot), well...
So, yes, I am reading it between customers...
I’ll probably be doing a fuller review one of these days. But the book is quite frankly awful. It posits that the pro-slavery decisions were bad because they caved to popular opinion rather than the Constitutional Law. It then says that the Massachusetts Gay Marriage ruling was bad because it caved to the (state) constitution, rather than popular opinion!
There are few times in the book that it states clear legal reasoning, rather than scare-mongering ideas. The section on foreign-courts opinion is utterly devoid of argument: it merely uses the word “foreign” as an epitaph and trusts the audience to be scared. This book is actually comedic in its deliberate signal to noise ratio...
Andrew: The fact that that this one particular post is weak does not mean I find you as a person to be intellectually weak. While I understand that bloggers expose themselves to those that lash out, maybe benefit of the doubt should still apply?
So, (hopefully) now that perceptions of personal attack are put to rest, let's re-review some thoughts in the OP and the comments:
a) Senators make unsuccesful presidential candidates:
While I agreed this might be statistically true, I think it is too simplistic a statement to make. First, reducing each individual candidate's history to a "last-office-held" label seems prone to bad analysis. Did they lose because they were Senators, or because of many other possible reasons? The only way an analysis of "last-office-held" makes sense is if that is the sole reason for their loss. I would think that in something as complex as running for President, such labeling should strike anyone as an over-simplification.
Furthermore, one might say that Governors do twice as well winning Presidencies over Senators over the last four or so decades and that is nothing to sneeze at, but when you compare absolute numbers of one Senator versus two Governor winners, the statistic seems less sexy to me somehow.
b) Senators make unsuccesful presidential candidates because of their Senate voting record:
If so, why do many VPs, many of whom were previously Senators, make up some of the "most likely" candidates short of actual sitting Presidents? Wouldn't the voting past haunt Senators-cum-VPs as they aspire to Presidency?
c) Vice Presidents almost never go on to be elected President:
VPs are the most succesful group short of sitting Presidents to win the Presidency in recent history. However, most contenders are not VPs.
d) People don't like dynasties:
Well, IMO and without any real hard opinion polling data, I'm actually inclined to believe that most people don't really care about dynasties. My use of "obviously fasle" and Ronald's "almost certainly true" should both be taken with a big grain of salt. :)
e) There are many Hillary-Haters:
It doesn't matter if there is a ton of Hillary-Haters, if there are two tons of Hillary-Lovers. That is a clear majority win.
Well, I'm done. This is long enough as it is and is bordering on a polisci paper... :)
As to her running, I think she will. As to her winning, I think she will not. My reasoning is simple. After 8 years of Bill Clinton and 12 years of Bushes, I suspect that the American people are going to gravitate towards the candidates who are not connected to 2 straight administrations where the opposition party spent the entire term shouting "liar, liar, pants on fire" at the President the entire time. The '08 elections are going to be "outsider" elections.
I am sitting here looking at a 20 page paper Progressive ambition among United States Senators: 1972-1988 (From the Journal of Politics #49), Abramson, Aldrich, Rohde. Interestingly, more Democratic Senators tend to run for President (as a percentage) than Republicans. This is mainly due to the fact that Republicans owned the Whitehouse during most of this time...
While you are correct that there are many possible factors contributing to Senators not winning, the undeniable fact is that they just don’t. Indeed, this point has been so well drilled into my head from my own training that I simply glossed over any proof or reasons, assuming the audience was on the same page as me. But, let me try this one as a representative sample:
"It seemed that governors always had their own way when convention time rolled around. Somehow, the up-and-coming Governor seemed to be the president waiting in the wings. Senators too often tended to conjure up and image of stentorian windbags whose cubbishness was born of a capacity to compromise any and all issues away, including more of then that not principle itself."
Why the Odds Are Against a Governor's Becoming President
Louis Harris
The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 3. (Autumn, 1959), pp. 361-370.
(if you have Jstor access: click here
I’ll note that this article pertains only to the 1960 election, which was enormously exceptional. It was the last time a sitting senator became President. It was the best link I could find in a few minutes notice...
Win: probably not (but it's a scary prospect).
Positioning herself as a Moderate in Preparation: hell, yes.
Closet lefty: of COURSE.
I do think governors are in a better position than senators, all other things being equal. But they are rarely equal.
Dude, your analysis is very weak, and furthermore, it's all over the map in its wrongness.
Throughout our ENTIRE HISTORY, not just the last three or four decades, Governors have usually won the Presidency. We have had 43 Presidents of the United States, and around 30 of them have been Governors. About five have been Generals. A few have been Vice President. Exactly two sitting Senators have ever been elected to the office of President, and two sitting Vice Presidents.
This is not an obscure statistic. Clearly, no matter where you look in our history, Senators simply do not tend to win this office, although many of them try.
VPs are the most succesful group short of sitting Presidents to win the Presidency in recent history. However, most contenders are not VPs.
That is simply false. Barring assassination or resignation, only one sitting Vice President has become President in the last 100 years, and so far as I can tell, only two or three have ever managed it, ever.
Vice Presidents usually gain the Presidency only via assassination or resignation of the President. This is true of both recent history and the entire run of American history.
By the way, I do agree with your point on Hillary-haters. Nixon had legions of Nixon-haters, and won anyway, so that's not necessarily an impediment. It's a question of what the poll data shows.
Mostly as an aside, if Jeb were to run, I'd be hard pressed to vote for him - and I think he's actually the better conservative than his brother is....I just can't get the hang of a third President Bush in my lifetime; just too un-American. Of course, the Democrats could oblige a Bush III by nominating a real loser....
Think about it - it is a very exlusive club; there are only 100 members; they have immense power and prestige and they live a very swell life. Lots of aides to take care of drudge work, invites to all the best events/parties - lavish salary and perks. In addition to this, you actually get to really shape legislation - in the House, you're competing with 434 others to get your finger in the pie, in the Senate there's only 99 others to work around, some of whom don't really care one way or the other.
Additionally, if Hillary were re-elected in 2006 (which looks otherwise like a strong GOP year given the number of "red State" Democratic Senators up for re-election), then she will rise into a position of de-jure leadership to match her de-facto current leadership; who knows, maybe even replacing Reid if the Democrats take a shellacking in 2006 under his leadership. Main thing, she'll be a in a strong position to be Democratic point-person on major legislative issues. Some day, the Democrats will take back control of the Senate, and a very senior Senator Clinton would then be poised to be Senate Majority Leader.
It could be that once 2008 rolls around Hillary decides to just stay put - remember, being President is a 24/7 job with responsibility for all sorts of things that perhaps Hillary just doesn't care about...being a senior member of the Senate allows her the time and leisure to concentrate on only those issues she really cares about.
Additionally, the left-lunatic/centrist split in the Democratic Party grows apace...by 2008, it might be that there are two Democratic nominees for President...Hillary could well capture one of them, but who'd want that?
As for the actual prospects - if Hillary does run in 2008, I think she'll be beaten in the primaries due to her pro-war triangulating...and if by some miracle she emerged as the nominee of a unified Democratic Party, she'd still get beaten.
It makes sense to me because it uses some of her traits that I know, opportunism and lust for power.
I don't know if I agree with the end about her chances in the primary. As someone above wrote (I can't find it again)she can make noises like a centrist because the moonbat wing will let her slide the way they won't let anybody else slide.
Remember 'electability'? They'll fall all over themselves because she's electable and they know she's really one of them. The nitwits of any party don't mind when the candidate lies as long as they think she's lying to get elected and then enact the agenda they want.
She may honestly not want to run. Although I doubt it.
Would he come out strongly supporting and uplifting Hillary, doing all he could to get her elected? Or would he drag her down, either subconciously or intentionally thinking that perhaps her presidency would eclipse his? Would the benefits of being the first FirstHusband outweigh that risk?
He's definitely a wild card that could make-or-break her campaign.