The safe money is on Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic presidential nomination—though not the presidency. Having said that, the media and punditry are far too dismissive of a possible Bernie Sanders upset. Just look at 2007.
Sixteen months out from the 2008 presidential election—that is, July 2007—it seemed like all the people who are paid to know were certain that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee.
She had the name recognition, access to big donors, an infrastructure, her family’s reputation for making life difficult for those who buck them, and the aura of an heir apparent. Only a fool would have thought some little-known upstart could successfully challenge her.
But that fool emerged in the person of Barack Obama.
As the Washington Post reported on a July 2007 Washington Post-ABC poll:
Overall, 45 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents support Clinton to be the party’s nominee, with Obama second at 30 percent.
Another quote in the article also had a familiar ring:
Clinton is a polarizing figure, which has raised questions about whether she could win a general election. But Democrats appear to dismiss that argument. Asked which Democratic candidate has the best chance of winning the general election in November 2008, 54 percent said Clinton, more than twice the percentage saying Obama (22 percent).
So there was a 32-point pro-Clinton spread when the question was who would be more electable.
Even by December 2007, USA Today was reporting:
Despite extensive news coverage of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s improved position in Iowa and New Hampshire recently, there has been little change in the positioning of the Democratic presidential candidates on a national level, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton continues to have a substantial [18 points] lead over the group of Democrats vying to win the party’s nomination for president in 2008.
Got that? Less than a year before the “coronation” of the presidential candidate Democrats thought they had waited their entire lives for, Clinton had an 18-point lead over Obama.
So how does Bernie stack up to Obama’s first run? Alan Rappeport of the New York Times wrote on July 2:
The survey of likely [Iowa] Democratic caucusgoers showed Mrs. Clinton leading Mr. Sanders by a margin of 52 percent to 33 percent. While that remains a commanding lead, it is much narrower than a May poll that showed her with 60 percent support and him with 15 percent.
What about the second most important early-primary state of New Hampshire? Politico reported in June: “
Among [NH] Democratic voters who say they will participate in the state’s primary next year, 44 percent back Clinton. Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist from neighboring Vermont, grabs 32 percent.
In short, you could argue that Sanders is doing at least as well against Clinton as Obama was at the same point in the 2008 election cycle.
Why would that be the case? For one thing Democrats want a principled, honest far-lefty, just as Republicans want a principled, honest conservative. We haven’t had either in a long time.
For Hillary Clinton, if it wasn’t for dishonesty, she wouldn’t have any honesty at all.
Of course, there are important differences between Bernie and the Barack of 2008, and age is a big one. Obama had a young coolness about him; Sanders would be our oldest president. But then he’s only six years older than Clinton, a small enough gap to mitigate the age issue.
Hillary will likely win the Democratic nomination, in part because Bernie Sanders is no Barack Obama—which is probably the best thing I can say about Bernie. But she shouldn’t take that victory for granted, like so many liberal pundits are.