[fblike]
For the last fourteen years political pundits have debated whether Hillary Clinton will become America’s first female president. When her husband Bill ended his presidency in 2001, Hillary became New York’s junior senator. In 2004, she thought of running for the Democratic presidential nomination, but opted against it. In 2008, she decided to run for the presidency but was defeated by Barack Obama in the closest primary race since 1976. Following the 2008 presidential election Clinton became President Obama’s Secretary of State. She left that position in 2013 and observers believe she has been using her time away from Washington to solicit support for another presidential bid.
Instead of focusing on Secretary Clinton’s background, this topic brief will breakdown three questions that extempers will receive about her during the 2014-2015 season: Will Clinton choose to run for the presidency in 2016? Can she win the Democratic nomination if she chooses to run? And most importantly, can she win a general election and become America’s first female president?
Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.
Will Clinton Choose to Run for the Presidency in 2016?
The big question in the Beltway is whether Secretary Clinton will run for the White House a second time. While some think the Democratic Party needs to go in a different direction and distance itself from the 1990s nostalgia that Bill Clinton’s administration generates, others think the question is not if Hillary chooses to run, but when she chooses to make her announcement. U.S. News and World Report on October 1 notes that some of Clinton’s advisors want her to delay the announcement of her candidacy as much as possible. The idea behind this is that people already know who she is and that announcing too early may allow her opposition to coalesce around an alternative candidate. However, U.S. News and World Report argues that Clinton should not pursue this strategy. Although she continues to poll far ahead of potential 2016 challengers, her approval numbers have fallen since she resigned as Secretary of State. It is true that Clinton has elements of her 2008 presidential apparatus intact in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, but she will want to take a year or more to rebuild those structures for a new campaign. If Secretary Clinton opts to run for the presidency, extempers can expect an announcement of the decision around February or March.
The allure of Clinton running is that she is the Democratic Party’s best 2016 candidate. Until she decides to enter the contest, other potential Democratic presidential nominees such as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, New Jersey Senator Corey Booker, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley may be reluctant to enter the contest for fear of jeopardizing their future presidential chances. After all, presidential primary campaigns take a great deal of time and although they can bolster one’s financial fortunes – as was the case for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee – they can also lead to significant embarrassments – see Rick Perry’s disastrous 2012 bid – or backfire politically – which is what happened to Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd in 2008. For a party that seeks to use its diversity as a weapon against Republicans, many Democrats are eager for Clinton to run and break the last “glass ceiling” of American politics. Some are even exploring the possibility of running Clinton with Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, who is Latino. Clinton would also bring her husband Bill out on the campaign trail, which The Wall Street Journal says on October 5 is a major bonus.
However, there are several reasons why Clinton may not run. First, a presidential campaign is physically and mentally taxing. Doing it one time is enough for many candidates. Clinton will be sixty-nine years old by the time of the next presidential election, so health concerns could factor into the race. Age is not an immediate disqualification from the office, as Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 when he was sixty-nine, but John McCain’s 2008 campaign showed that an older candidate will come under intense media scrutiny regarding their health and fitness for the office. Second, Clinton may opt to stay out of politics for financial reasons. Along with her husband she is a popular public speaker on college campuses and for corporations. In fact, she earns millions of dollars each year from these public speaking engagements and she can continue speaking at these events without undergoing the scrutiny and the stress of the presidency, which pays less than a million dollars each year. And third, Clinton’s daughter Chelsea recently gave birth to Clinton’s first grandchild and she may decide that family is more important. Family issues have scuttled past presidential campaigns, such as Colin Powell’s 1996 Republican presidential bid, so that could play into her decision as well.
That said, I am going to argue that Clinton will be running in 2016. Everything about Clinton’s political career following her husband’s presidency (and even during it) confirms that she wishes to occupy the White House in her own right. Even though Clinton lost the 2008 presidential primaries to Barack Obama, she won more popular votes and her supporters believe that the Obama team only won the nomination because it outmaneuvered the Clinton’s in caucus states. One of the signals that Clinton is going to enter the 2016 campaign is her support for Democratic candidates in the midterm elections. Political figures who are considering presidential bids typically endorse and speak for candidates during the midterm elections to bolster their profile and win political allies. This type of politicking greatly assisted Richard Nixon’s presidential bid in 1968, as the candidates he campaigned for had high winning percentages in the 1966 midterms. The Nation on October 6 points out that Clinton is campaigning for Democratic gubernatorial candidates in Illinois, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Florida. She is also making appearances for Senate candidates in New Hampshire, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, and Iowa. Roll Call adds on October 7 that most of Clinton’s appearances are concentrated in battleground states that the Democrats need to win to retain control of the Senate. Democrats hope that she will increase the turnout of female voters, who traditionally favor Democratic candidates. Therefore, extempers should assume that Clinton is running for the presidency until they are told otherwise. The evidence on the ground is just too overwhelming to say otherwise.
Can Hillary Clinton Win the Democratic Nomination?
This is where answering domestic politics questions get very interesting. Although it is assumed that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party in 2016 that does not mean that she will eventually get the nomination. After all, for much of the 2008 campaign Clinton led the polls and I could point extempers back to 2007 articles that discussed the need for Barack Obama to drop out of the race and accept the vice presidential slot on a Clinton-led ticket. Presidential history is littered with examples of candidates who commanded support early and flamed out (see Nelson Rockefeller in 1964, George Romney in 1968, Hubert Humphrey in 1972, and Howard Dean in 2004).
So, why would Democrats want to challenge Clinton in the first place? Much of the opposition to Clinton is ideological and comes from the far-left of the Democratic Party. This so-called progressive wing opposes the centrist policies of the Clintons, which generally pays lip service to the Democrats diverse coalition of African Americans, Latinos, feminists, homosexuals, and organized labor, but also favors pro-corporate policies. For example, the first two years of Bill Clinton’s administration were quite liberal as he pushed through more stringent gun control legislation and attempted to create a universal health insurance program (which Hillary engineered). After the Democrats suffered a massive defeat in the 1994 midterm elections, Clinton moved farther to the center and worked with Republicans to create welfare reform, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. The repeal of Glass-Steagall has been cited as one of the contributing factors to the 2008 financial collapse since it allowed banks to participate in a wide range of commercial activities with customer funds. Far-left Democrats hope that if they put up a candidate to challenge Clinton that they can maneuver her politics away from the center. Clinton has antagonized some of the Democratic base by criticizing President Obama’s foreign policy. Politico writes on September 23 that Clinton slammed the President’s foreign policy doctrine in an interview with The Atlantic in August, saying that President Obama’s dictum of “Don’t do stupid stuff [was] not an organizing principle.” Administration insiders also point out that Clinton wanted a larger troop surge in Afghanistan and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s new book Worthy Fights says that the President’s staffers kept Clinton from using the full powers of her office. The Washington Post on September 25 notes that the progressive left is outraged at President Obama’s decision to bomb ISIS and that could work against Clinton since she has supported the President’s recent actions against the group. Leftists are also uneasy about some of Clinton’s recent public pronouncements about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as The Washington Post on October 8 and Bloomberg on October 9 write that she signaled her willingness to potentially repeat the 2.3% excise tax that the ACA places on the makers or importers of medical devices such as defibrillators and pacemakers. Supporters of the ACA contend that the tax is necessary for funding the law, while opponents claim that it hinders job creation. Far-left Democrats also see the Clintons as an embodiment of centrist Democratic policies that reward Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. CNN reports on September 10 that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, has claimed that Clinton is not paying enough attention to growing threats to the middle class. Finally, Clinton’s social views are criticized by some Democratic interest groups. In 2008, African Americans backing Barack Obama claimed that Bill Clinton used offensive language to downplay Obama’s success in South Carolina. Gay rights advocates are also suspicious of Clinton since the former First Lady was not a proponent of gay marriage until recently. These leftist anxieties could give a Clinton presidential bid problems within the Democratic Party.
However, do left-wing forces have a candidate that could really defeat Clinton in the primaries? Left-wing groups have their sights set on two potential candidates: Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. For Sanders, one can disagree with his politics, but he has been consistent in his views on policy issues during his time in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The problem with Sanders, though, is that very few Americans know who he is. The CNN article previously cited mentions that Sanders is going to Iowa and New Hampshire for town hall meetings, leading some analysts to suspect that he has presidential ambitions, but it is highly unlikely that Sanders could defeat someone of Clinton’s stature. First, Sanders is too extreme for more moderate Democrats and Clinton would easily win delegates against him outside of the Northeast. And second, Sanders does not really have an attractive profile. His ideology is appealing, but not a lot of history could be made if he were to be elected.
Elizabeth Warren’s potential candidacy is a more interesting question. The junior senator from Massachusetts, who defeated Republican Scott Brown in 2012, is a favorite of progressives that want to further restrain the activities of corporations and banks. Warren has denied that she is a candidate, but progressives are trying to draft her into running. As a woman, she would counter Clinton’s history-making narrative on the campaign trail and she might force Clinton to commit herself to more progressive economic positions. The Hill on October 8 writes that Ready for Warren, a group attempting to convince Warren to run, is setting up field offices in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, three of the four early states in the Democratic presidential nominating calendar. U.S. News and World Report writes on September 25 that a Warren candidacy would be populist in nature, just like the campaign that William Jennings Bryan tried to mount for the presidency in 1896. However, that is not necessarily a flattering comparison because Bryan went down in flames against Republican William McKinley in that election, which effectively killed the appeal of the Populist Party. If Warren did decide to run, though, she would probably still be an underdog against Clinton. First, Warren’s bread and butter issues are primarily economic. It is unclear whether she would be able to put together attractive solutions to other problems ailing America. If she failed to do so, she would be labeled as a single-issue candidate and those typically fail in presidential contests. Second, Warren had several serious stumbles in her 2012 Senate race, the most notable of which was the accusation that she lied about her Native American ancestry to benefit from Harvard’s affirmative action program. The fact that Massachusetts is a Democratic-heavy state and that Warren ran in a presidential year, when President Obama’s supporters went to the polls in large numbers, helped Warren overcome this controversy, but a presidential race magnifies mistakes. And finally, a Warren candidacy stumbles on the experience issue. Warren is an academic by trade and would only have served in the Senate for four years prior to running for president. Politico on October 5 argues that voters in 2016 may value experience more than charisma, especially based on President Obama’s recent struggles, and that could favor candidates such as Clinton and hurt others such as Warren that lack lengthy political resumes.
Aside from the forces of the far-left, Clinton could face challenges from the center and even the right. Vice President Joe Biden has not ruled out the possibility of running for the presidency a third time (he ran in 1988 and 2008). Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, a Republican-turned-Democrat, has not ruled out the possibility of running either. A Biden campaign would try to defend the Obama administration’s foreign and economic policies, some of which Clinton has disagreed with, while a Webb campaign, according to The Washington Post on September 25, would probably try to adopt a more isolationist stance. A challenge from the middle or conservative sides of the party would not threaten Clinton as much as a challenge from the progressive base, especially since Clinton occupies the middle and conservative ground at the moment, but a primary field of Webb, Biden, and Warren could put Clinton in an uncomfortable position of trying to appease everyone in the party and eventually pleasing no one.
What could make a big difference in the Democratic primary is whether President Obama decides to support a candidate. Will he support Hillary, especially after Bill Clinton gave him some much needed support in 2012? Or will he opt to support a more leftist candidate that he feels would better protect his legacy? Depending on his popularity ratings, the Clinton team may not welcome an Obama endorsement, but the President would carry a lot of weight in primary states where African Americans compose a large slice of the Democratic electorate, such as Georgia and South Carolina.
Since Clinton has yet to declare her candidacy – and the rest of the potential field is putting off their decision until they see her make one – discussing the Democratic presidential primary is difficult. However, Clinton would be the heavy favorite to win. She would need to avoid significant gaffes and have a better caucus organization in Iowa than she did in 2008. She would also need to spend a lot of time rallying voters in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Unlike the other candidates, though, Clinton already has the remnants of a campaign infrastructure established in these states and funding for her campaign, at least in the early stages, would not be a problem so she may be able to destroy her rivals with negative advertising blitzes. Any Democrat that wanted to thwart a Clinton candidacy would need to win in Iowa and/or New Hampshire to build momentum. If they failed, a Clinton nomination would be assured.
Can Clinton Win the General Election?
According to test polls, Clinton would be the presumptive favorite against a generic Republican nominee in 2016, especially in the battleground states. The Washington Times on October 1 reveals that a Quinnipiac University poll of New Jersey voters put Clinton ten points ahead of Governor Chris Christie, one of the favorites to win the Republican nomination. Additionally, Politico on October 9 finds that younger voters, the so-called “Millennial generation,” favor Clinton 50-37% against a generic Republican nominee. The Week on October 7 points out that a Democratic internal poll finds that Clinton would turn Georgia into a tossup state in 2016. Democrats have fielded good candidates for the state’s gubernatorial and Senate races this year and they are trying to take advantage of shifting demographics in the Peach State to turn it blue. Those tactics have worked in Virginia and it appears that a Clinton candidacy would go a long way toward moving Georgia out of the Republican column. If Clinton did win Georgia, it would be the first time that a Democratic presidential nominee captured the state since 1992. RealClearPolitics test polls in battleground states also show Clinton up by wide margins against Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. In fact, the only possible Republican challenger that occasionally defeats her is former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
These polls appear to indicate that the idea of a Clinton presidency resonates among voters, but that does not mean that Clinton would easily skate into the Oval Office. Early polls mean very little as most voters are not paying attention to a presidential election that is still more than two years away. If early polls mattered, George H.W. Bush would have defeated Bill Clinton by a wide margin in 1992 and Bob Dole would have defeated Bill Clinton for the presidency in 1996. According to Politico on October 2, a Clinton candidacy could run into problems because it would not resemble the Clinton campaign of 1992. In fact, Hillary’s biggest deficit in the race might be that she is not her husband. Unlike her husband, Hillary is more reserved in speeches and with the public. Hillary is a solid public speaker, but she also lacks the charisma of her husband in motivating crowds and creating what Politico calls an “authentic populist connection.” A new Clinton candidacy would be the complete opposite of Bill Clinton’s 1992 run as well. Whereas in 1992 the Clintons were a fresh faces to American voters and marked a generational shift on Capitol Hill, Hillary Clinton’s campaign would try to turn back the clock from the youthfulness of President Obama. The Democratic Party, as Politico notes, has never done this in the modern era. The conservative National Review on October 4 argues that Clinton’s call for “evidence-based optimism” is hardly a slogan to campaign on and is actually more of an attack on President Obama than an attack on Republicans.
Republicans have attacked Hillary for much of her career, so it is somewhat easy to see what a generic Republican nominee would focus on. Republicans would argue that the Clintons had many problems while they occupied the White House, especially concerning scandals with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), campaign financing, investment deals, office personnel, and especially Bill Clinton’s affairs. However, trying to link Hillary to most of this might prove tenuous and would not be enough for Republicans to defeat her. Republicans would then try to focus their attack on Clinton’s leadership. If the Republican nominee is a sitting governor such as John Kasich of Ohio, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, or Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, the argument would be that Hillary has never occupied an executive position at the state level. The Republicans would concede that she had been a senator and the Secretary of State, but they would argue that the country needed someone with more extensive management experience. On policy, Republicans would point to Clinton’s inability to improve relations with Russia and her support for the bombing of Libya that greatly destabilized the country and led to the death of a U.S. ambassador. They would also attempt to link her to President Obama and say that if people voted for her that they would be giving the President a third term.
A 2016 campaign would benefit Clinton at the outset. Politico on October 9 argues that Republicans know Clinton could boost turnout among Democratic constituencies, especially women, and they are trying to build enough of a firewall in 2014 House and Senate elections to prevent losing both houses of Congress in 2016. The Republicans inability in recent years to make Northeast states competitive – George W. Bush captured New Hampshire in 2000 and that has been the lone Republican triumph in the region since – their inability to win other states such as Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, and their loss of traditionally Republican-leaning states such as Colorado and Virginia puts a Clinton campaign at a significant advantage. Democratic strategists hope that changing demographics might affect Texas’s standing as well, but hopes of doing that are more for 2020 or 2024 rather than 2016. Clinton would merely need to hold onto the states that President Obama won in 2012, and if she managed to hold the tossup states of Colorado, Florida, and Ohio that would be enough for her to win the election. Coupled with the Clinton’s amazing fundraising ability, the Republican candidate could end up swamped by negative advertising. This, coupled with the Democrats excellent ground game in recent presidential elections, means that the Republican Party faces daunting prospects of success in 2016.
The other advantage to Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee is that 2016 could be the Republican equivalent of civil war. Senator Rand Paul represents a growing libertarian wing of the party, while Senator Ted Cruz is a favorite of the Tea Party, and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is the favorite of the moderate party establishment. Toss in other wild cards such as Governor Mike Pence of Indiana, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and you have a very diverse, incongruent field. A long primary may not necessarily be bad for Republicans as Clinton and President Obama showed in 2008, but Republican leaders do prefer a shorter primary season because they believe a long primary hindered Mitt Romney’s efforts in 2012. Since the Republican Party is divided today between its moderate and conservative members, as seen in Tea Party challenges to Senate candidates this year in Kentucky, Kansas, and Mississippi, a long primary would probably produce bitterness and that could help Clinton win the White House.
Extempers should expect Hillary Clinton to seek the presidency in 2016 and should consider her the presumptive favorite to win the Democratic nomination and the general election. The emergence of new issues, economic problems, and other candidates could radically change this calculus, but based on the evidence it is clear that she is the undisputed frontrunner for the White House in two years.