WASHINGTON — It's over.
Barring a political catastrophe, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president. Her lead has become insurmountable.
Whether she will win the presidency is less certain. But at this stage, a year and a month out, it's hers to lose.
Every indicator now massively favours Ms. Clinton's campaign. In the latest national poll, released last week by The Washington Post and ABC News, she had the support of 53 per cent of Democratic voters. Challenger Barack Obama had slipped to 20 per cent, while John Edwards came in at 13 per cent.
Mr. Obama used to be able to boast that he was raising more money than Ms. Clinton, which suggested there might be a grassroots surge building. But in the third quarter, when easily available sources of fundraising have dried up and only those with deep wells can still draw water, that lead has evaporated. Ms. Clinton raised $27-million (U.S.) to Mr. Obama's $20-million.
Conventional wisdom holds that all of these advantages can turn to dust if one candidate or another does better or worse than expected in the crucial Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina caucuses and primaries in early 2008. That may not be the case this time, since half the states, including New York and California, will hold their primaries on Feb. 5, limiting the ability of dark horses to exploit early successes.
But even if conventional wisdom does hold, Ms. Clinton has as yet no reason to worry. The latest poll, released by The Des Moines Register over the weekend, has the New York senator at 29 per cent in Iowa, comfortably ahead of John Edwards (23 per cent), and Mr. Obama (22 per cent). And remember: Ms. Clinton doesn't have to win the early primaries, she just has to not lose them. Her powerful national organization will take care of the rest on Feb. 5.
Then there is the Michigan/Florida factor. Both of these states have scheduled primaries in January, in violation of national party rules. While the Republicans have shrugged off the transgression, the Democratic National Committee has penalized both states by stripping them of their delegates, and the major Democratic candidates have promised not to campaign in either state.
The results in Michigan and Florida will, however, have a powerful psychological effect. Again, the strength of her national campaign should work to Ms. Clinton's advantage in both states.
Skeptics observe that Howard Dean was comfortably in the lead in the Democratic primaries four years ago, only to come a cropper in Iowa, and that none of the big names would run for the Democratic nomination in 1992 because everyone knew president George Bush was invincible.
All perfectly true. But it is also true that campaigns can build a momentum that, at some point, becomes insurmountable. With a 30-point lead in the polls and an unmatched political organization, Senator Clinton appears to have achieved that momentum.
How did she do it? There may be three factors. First, the organization. The Clintons built a formidable political machine to advance Bill Clinton's presidential prospects, and Ms. Clinton inherited that machine.
Second, the husband. Bill Clinton was a highly popular president, and that popularity was enhanced by the travails of his successor. Voters appear to approve of his presence, and look forward to having him back in the White House as first gentleman.
Third, the end of ideology. National polls report that voters are fed up with the ideological divide that has formed between the Democratic and Republican parties. They want a president who can get things done, who can navigate legislation through Congress, who will balance the budget, who will get the United States out of Iraq without giving away the store to the terrorists, who can fix the health-care mess and improve the schools and mend the broken infrastructure.
Hillary Clinton's greatest asset is experience. She would be one of the best qualified presidents ever to inherit the office, having spent eight years in the White House and eight in the Senate. She knows the system and can work it. That, more than anything else, may be the secret of her appeal.
Critics warn that if the Democrats do nominate Ms. Clinton, they are headed for certain defeat the following November, because she cannot draw soft Republican voters. They cite polls in which 45 per cent of voters say they view Hillary Clinton unfavorably.
But that leaves 55 per cent who like her fine. And those critics have to answer a question of their own: Who in the Republican field can beat her?
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has impeccable credentials in business and government. But his Mormon faith and his previous support for abortion and gay marriage have alienated the social-conservative base of the party, and he trails badly in national polls.
Former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the front-runner, is equally unpopular with social conservatives, while actor and former senator Fred Thompson's late arrival has thus far sparked neither light nor heat.
In any case, whoever confronts Ms. Clinton will also have to confront the legacy of the past seven years, which has left the Republican Party divided and dispirited. The Democrats have out-fundraised the Republicans $230-million to $149-million.
For Hillary Clinton to lose the nomination, and turn this prognostication to dust, she will have to commit a political mistake of enormous magnitude. Revelations of an affair, say, or of shady fundraising tactics won't be sufficient. The political market has already discounted the possibility.
She would have to … actually, it is impossible to imagine, right now, what it would take for Hillary to lose.
No comments:
Post a Comment