What is it about today? I keep browsing over to articles that raise interesting questions and am disappointed after reading them that they don’t even try to answer the questions they raise. In this case the disappointing article was in the New York Observer and propitiously titled “What if Hillary Doesn’t Run?” In a 930 word column here are the two snippets that address the question:
Most recent polls show that more than 60% of Democrats support her over the other possible candidates and that she leads the second most popular candidate, either Vice President Joseph Biden or Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts by more than 50 points. The Ready for Hillary PAC, a kind of proto-campaign organization, has raised and spent millions of dollars, far outpacing the campaign organizations of other Democratic candidates. Many high profile Democratic leaders, as well as various liberal organizations, are poised to endorse Ms. Clinton as soon as she announces her candidacy.
and
If Clinton decides not to run, the Democratic candidates will have to scramble to raise money, secure endorsements, raise their national profile and build an organization to catch up with their Republican opponents.
That’s it. The balance of the column is devoted to why she’ll run and why she’s not a particularly satisfying candidate. I’m left with the clear impression that the author believes she’s inevitable which means there’s no there there for this column.
Let’s face it. Among those with even a scintilla of political consciousness in the United States Hillary Clinton has 100% name recognition. And there are no undecideds, merely liars and truthtellers. We could hold the election tomorrow and the results probably wouldn’t be materially different from those in 2016. If Ms. Clinton decides to run, that is. If she decides not to, it’s “Katie, bar the door.”
Wasn’t Hillary inevitable at this point in the 2008 cycle as well, but eight years younger and with, I believe, an even bigger war chest?
Of course, she has a bigger advantage this time because any serious potential rivals haven’t fully committed yet….
I think this is one of the great weaknesses in the Democratic insistence on viewing their politicians as wise, brilliant, capable, etc. and the Republicans as foolish, ignorant louts. You’re completely baffled when your wise, brilliant, etc. is defeated.
The reality is that with very few exceptions (and no elected exceptions, at least for a century) presidential candidates of either party are perfectly ordinary examples of the professional class. Bush was no idiot. Obama is no genius. They’re just smarter than about 60% of the people.
Why wouldn’t they be examples of the professional class? As you’ve pointed out many times yourself, running for office is a profession these days.
It makes sense that they’d be somewhat ordinary, too. If they were extraordinary they’d probably be doing something else, where the rewards tend to be better.