Why Hillary is inevitable in the primary (Effortpost inside)

[IceSpear]

I) Fundraising

Myth #1: Hillary was a financial juggernaut in 2007-2008, with Obama running on a shoestring budget.

Fact: Obama outraised her multiple times, occasionally by blowout margins. And this wasn't only towards the end of the primary, he was outraising her as early as Q2 of 2007. There's simply no evidence that Obama had any trouble whatsoever keeping competitive with fundraising, which is a hallmark of a serious candidate.

Now, does anyone seriously believe any of the D-list candidates currently running against her are capable of being competitive with Hillary in fundraising? As I type this, Hillary is raising ungodly amounts of money from the Democratic donor class, which this time is nearly unanimously behind her (more on this point later.) Meanwhile, O'Malley, Chafee, and the rest are all dithering in their exploratory committees. That's just making their already inescapable hole even deeper.

Myth #2: Money doesn't mean everything! <insert example here>.

Fact: Yes, there are examples of candidates who got drastically outspent winning. But those are the exceptions that prove the rule. Most of the time, the better funded candidate wins. And even in cases where the candidate with less money won, they still usually had enough to at least stay competitive. That will not be so this time. Hillary is going to completely demolish the competition in terms of fundraising. It will not be remotely close.

II) Establishment Support

Myth #3: The Democratic establishment overwhelmingly backed Hillary in 2007, just like they're doing now.

Fact: The Democratic establishment was in no way united behind Hillary. Not only is this clear from the fundraising figures above, it is also clear from endorsements. In case you guys forgot, Ted Kennedy was a huge backer of Obama. Many other Democratic politicians backed him as well. Hillary had more endorsements overall, but it was not anything close to unanimous. As for Hillary, at this point in 2007 she had the support of a single Senator. This time she has the support of 27 Senators before she even declared her campaign, more than a majority of the Democratic caucus. Yeah, #Hillaryover50. As for her "competition", they have nothing. In Maryland, both Senators have endorsed Hillary. Same for the Senators and Governors in Virginia and Rhode Island. Sanders' Senate colleague has endorsed Hillary. If none of these people can win endorsements from high ranking politicians in their home states, where exactly are they going to do so?

III) Polling

Myth #4: Hillary was polling just as strong/almost as strong in 2007/2008 as she was now.

Fact: Hillary's poll numbers aren't even in the same universe now as they were in 2007/2008. I will illustrate using the RCP averages.

(For the purposes of this thread, I will be ignoring Elizabeth Warren's support since she is clearly not running. Some might scoff at this, but if anything it's TOO generous to the non Hillary candidates, since three separate pollsters (Marist, CNN, and YouGov) have all confirmed that Hillary actually gains the most when Warren is excluded. Not surprising when you consider the gender factor. However, since I have no way of knowing what the actual breakdown is, I will simply ignore it entirely.)

National, April 16th 2007: Clinton +9
National, April 16th 2015: Clinton +48
Swing: Clinton +39

Iowa, April 16th 2007: Edwards +3 (!)
Iowa, April 16th 2015: Clinton +48
Swing: Clinton +51

New Hampshire, April 16th 2007: Clinton +8
New Hampshire, April 16th, 2015: Clinton +44
Swing: Clinton +36

South Carolina, April 16th 2007: Clinton +7
South Carolina, April 16th 2015: Clinton +43
Swing: Clinton +36

The numbers speak for themselves. You're either insane or willfully ignorant if you think Hillary's numbers in the 2008 cycle are anywhere near what they are now.

Myth #5: Okay, Hillary leads by a huge margin, but it's only because of name recognition.

Fact: Name recognition is a part of her leads, but it can't explain them away, or even greatly reduce them for that matter. If it's only because of name recognition, why is she crushing Biden everywhere who has name recognition just as high? If it's only because of name recognition, why is she demolishing Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, Andrew Cuomo, Mark Warner, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Russ Feingold, etc. in their home states when most Democrats in those states know who they are and like them? Hell, she even stomps Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, and I would consider her a viable opponent against Hillary.

Myth #6: Okay, people are polling horribly now, but they can come out of nowhere just like Obama did.

Fact: Obama did not "come out of nowhere." He was widely talked up as a potential candidate after his 2004 DNC speech. And the fundraising figures and polling numbers show he did not begin as a nonentity once he entered the race either. He immediately gathered a solid base of support (both among the electorate and donor base), unlike the clique of literal 1%ers currently running against Hillary. Just see for yourself how high he was polling even in the early stages of the race through those links from earlier.

IV) Miscellaneous

Myth #7: Well, Hillary got destroyed in 2008, so she's clearly vulnerable anyway

Fact: No, it was actually the closest presidential primary campaign in history, and she arguably won the popular vote. And this was against a stellar candidate like Obama. Considering that, what exactly can Lincoln Chafee do against a FAR stronger Hillary?

Myth #8: She was inevitable in 2008 too!

Fact: This was a retrospective media narrative based off no evidence at the time, simply because "David beats Goliath" sounds a lot more interesting than "strong 2nd place defeats frontrunner", and to simultaneously lionize Obama and bask in the defeat of their hated nemesis Hillary. If you need evidence, read this. The author went back and delved into news stories from 2007-2008, and references to Hillary's "inevitability" were very thin, particularly after Obama entered the race. It's simply not based in reality.

However, even if they did describe her that way, that would simply reflect the idiocy of the media rather than showing anything about Hillary, because of the polling numbers above. How exactly would someone leading by mere single digits nationally and in NH/SC, but TRAILING in Iowa be "inevitable"? The answer is that they wouldn't be, and anyone who described them that way is literally retarded. But again, very few people did.

Myth #9: But Democrats/liberals/progressives/the left/the base/minorities hate Hillary!

Fact: No, they actually all love her. Read the crosstabs of any Hillary favorability poll for proof. I'm sorry, but your personal hatred of Hillary Clinton does not speak for the entire Democratic Party, as much as you wish it to be so. As for minorities, a little noticed fact is that African Americans are one of her strongest core groups of support now, and she cleaned Obama's clock amongs Hispanics in the 2008 primary, another inconvenient fact that went down the memory hole.

Myth #10: I'm an annoying Hillary hack because I consistently point out stubborn facts

Fact: No, actually most of my detractors are the hacks. All of the empirical evidence is on my side, while all the anti-Hillary hacks have is their own wishful thinking.

V) Conclusion

Hillary is inevitable. Get over it.

[IceSpear]

The point of this is?

Why not?

Reported for spamming the forum. You are arguing with NOBODY.

And I didn't even read whatever points you made (which I assume are the same points you mak in every post), I just had to read the title to know it's insufferable.

LOL. So everyone accepts Hillary is inevitable then? Wow, that's news to me. And it's not surprising you didn't read it. Refer to myth #10.

The fact you felt the need to waste your time writing this... You're scared, aren't you? You seem panicked. You spend more time attacking everyone to the left than you do the Republicans. You hold a deep HATRED of the other Democratic candidates. Why would you act so worried... If you didn't think she could lose?

Oh yes, you caught me. I mostly made it because a) I was bored, b) I said I would a while ago, and c) so I can refer back to it rather than have to repeat myself everytime someone makes a dumb uninformed post. I notice you addressed none of the actual points, most likely because you can't, just like every other anti-Hillary hack. Big shock.

The real campaign hasn't even begun, so these polls are extremely preliminary. You're under assumption that everybody indicating willingness to vote for Hillary now (before anybody else started campaigning) is set in stone. But politics doesn't work that way. It's dynamic to unpredictability. Remember Dukakis leading until summer by double digits just to lose by landslide in November... yeah, you say "but he wasn't leading by 50%", but leading by double digits before an election is a stronger thing than speculative polls with more than a year away. Remember state-by-state polls in 2007, showing that if faces by Obama, McCain would win in all states except IL, HI and MA? Remember all the recent races lost despite a candidate being supposed to win, both primary and general? Assuming that everything stays the same between now and the primaries, not to mention GE, is careless at best.

The only way Hillary may be inevitable, is because many potential opponents may not enter at all (which doesn't seems unlikely), not because of early polling.

Of course I agree Hillary is very close to achieve her goal, but she must actually do some work to keep things going.

The campaign started immediately after the midterms, if not earlier. This isn't the UK where our election seasons last 2 months, people have been laying the groundwork for quite a while. It's the invisible primary. Who said all the people saying they'd vote for Hillary is set in stone? She's ahead by HUGE margins. She can afford to lose massive amounts of support yet still win in a landslide. And no legitimate candidates are entering, which is exactly the point. Warren is the only candidate I see with both the stature and fundraising capability that would be able to take on Hillary, and she's not running. And with her exit and Hillary's entrance, Hillary became the nominee. Plus, you have to consider the other aspects I outlined in my post. None of these candidates are capable of giving Hillary a serious competition in any way, shape, or form. Obama clearly WAS capable of doing so from the very beginning.

I'm the first to admit Hillary's heavily favored and I wouldn't gamble any money on the possibility of her losing the nomination. But a lot of people seems to forget there's always an unpredictable factor. And I"m amazed anyone familiar with the recent U.S. political history can discount it. It's still April 2015, people.

Nothing is ever completely certain. But it's about as certain as saying James Lankford or Chuck Schumer will be re-elected, which most people have no problem doing.

I guess IceSpear is worried we haven't read every single other post he's made

I may have made these points spread across quite a large number of posts over a large amount of time, but now they're conveniently all gathered in one thread. That's handy. Anyway, it's not surprising you guys are trying to make this about me. See myth #10 (again).

[IceSpear]

At least on my end the problem was never that Clinton could win but merely that she is a horrible person who should never ever get close to the Oval Office ever again.  I believe that is what a lot of us "anti-Hillary hacks" believe.

So yes, good job IceSpear.  You successfully rebutted "myths" that very few of us have actually made.

I wouldn't say it's "very few." They're definitely a minority, but there's quite a significant "Hillary not inevitable!!!!" segment here. Besides, this wasn't directed just at the Atlas Forum, it was also directed at the idiotic pundits that continue to make vapid claims like "well, she looks inevitable...but we said she was in 2007 too!1!!! HAR HAR HAR ROFLMAO"

[IceSpear]

Nothing is ever completely certain. But it's about as certain as saying James Lankford or Chuck Schumer will be re-elected, which most people have no problem doing.

Nice strawman, but presidential election is hardly comparable to Senate races in NY or OK.

It's not a strawman, it's a comparison. Hillary's chances of losing the primary are around the same as their chances of losing re-election. Can you say with 100% certainty that those two will be re-elected? Nope. There's always the chance of a perfect storm happening (extremely strong opponent combined with massive wave combined with gaffes and/or scandal) that could dislodge them. The same applies to Hillary. Nevertheless, when you start getting into ludicrous and extremely unlikely hypotheticals, analysis becomes worthless. Hillary Clinton losing the Democratic primary is a ludicrous and extremely unlikely hypothetical. It shouldn't be discussed as if it's a serious possibility just because it's a part of your own wishful thinking.

And I notice you STILL haven't addressed any points of the original post other than the reliability of "early" polls.

[IceSpear]

I also like how I'm supposedly "arguing with nobody", yet here is Kalwejt continually plugging away with the "Hillary not inevitable" meme. I suppose he doesn't actually exist and is just a figment of my imagination.

[IceSpear]

Sheesh... You wish to operate under some bizzare assumption that this election season is somewhat exceptional from all rules of political dynamics and everything is already set in stone, go knock yourself out. I've already said my piece, but trying to argue with you is like trying to break down a wall with one's bare head. Not worth of efforts.

You didn't actually address the point. The rules of political dynamics do apply to this election as well. Extremely unlikely ludicrous circumstances can happen. But there's no point in dwelling on them, because 99.9% of the time they don't happen. This particular 0.1% chance of Hillary Clinton losing the Democratic primary without dying is dwelled on far too often considering its likelihood, mostly because it's the wet dream of so many.