Hillary in 2016? Not So Fast - By Frank Bruni

[DonViejo]

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Hillary in 2016? Not So Fast

By FRANK BRUNI

Published: November 4, 2013

Hillary Clinton of all people knows how political fortunes turn on a dime. But she must be puzzled nonetheless, and spooked, that over a six-month period when she made no big news whatsoever, her popularity took a double-digit tumble.

A poll released last week by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal charted the decline. It found that the percentage of Americans who view her favorably had dropped to 46 from 56. The percentage with unfavorable views had risen, less strikingly, to 33 from 29.

Here we go. The beginning of the end of her inevitability.

It’s about time, because the truth, more apparent with each day, is that she has serious problems as a potential 2016 presidential contender, and the premature cheerleading of Chuck Schumer and other Democrats won’t change that.

Full column
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/opinion/bruni-hillary-in-2016-not-so-fast.html

[bemildred]

1. Perhaps the polls are bullshit. Perhaps this is just regression towards the mean.

In any case it is empty babble. (And no, I don't really care for Ms Clinton much, but this is just political hackery.)

[karynnj]

7. Agree - not to mention, it was always going to be the case that as people saw her less as SoS

and more as a potential President, the metric would change. I think what the rush of top Democrats to endorse her is is an attempt to preclude anyone else getting enough oxygen to rise as a competitor for the nomination. Note that she still has very high favorables with Democrats - and it is Democrats who (with some independents) vote in the primaries. If no credible alternative surfaces, Clinton will get the nomination. If a credible competitor rises, she is likely to still be the frontrunner assuming (as is obvious) that she intends to run.

It is also rather silly for him to take 46 as a poor showing. There are very few people in government or politics polling higher than that. Most, including the President are lower. I can't think of many times when the electorate has been this negative about everyone and I have followed politics since the mid 1960s.

[bemildred]

8. Agreed.

However, I think she will have competition, there is money to be made opposing her. How serious it gets will depend on events at this point, I think. It's really much too early to even hazard a guess at what politics will look like in two years. As you mention they are all unpopular, and there is an intervening election which has all the makings of a doozy.

[karynnj]

10. Good points

Not to mention if everyone in power is still disliked, it is obvious this will be a change election. It is hard to imagine that a woman who was at the center of things in DC since 1992 can be the voice of change -- even if her campaign chooses that meme.

I also suspect that this far out - in any year - it is all name recognition. Iowa and NH let people that we know relatively little about try to convince enough people - face to face - to support them. It may be one of the few times where big money and big media can be beaten - not that media and money don't help. Someone winning or coming close - who sailed under the radar in one of the states, then has to be examined by the media. It has always given them some momentum.

[bemildred]

11. Yes. The future need not be like the past.

And nowadays, it seems really unlikely that will be the case.

[TommyCelt]

2. Like it or not, like HER or not...

Sorry, Frank...so fast.

The nomination is HC's if she wants it.

[Scuba]

3. Maybe some folks heard about this ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023959355

[Beacool]

14. So did Obama in 2008 and so will anyone else who becomes the nominee.

Big effing deal!!!

[HappyMe]

4. It's election day 2013.

I'm not concerned about Hillary in the polls.

[Laelth]

5. Excellent comments following that essay.

While DU is navel-gazing, I have to look elsewhere to keep up with the pulse of the nation.

It's looking very good for liberals, fyi, better than I have seen in many years.

-Laelth

[monmouth3]

6. I think Bill is her biggest problem. He should get out of the spotlight and leave her to it..n/t

[karynnj]

9. I would agree -- but he is also her greatest asset

This was the case in 2008 - the question is whether it still is the case. It is very clear that she can command top dollar for talks, which shows there is intense interest in what she has to say. Some of this might be that there is the expectation of hearing and being in a relatively exclusive event with a future President. It was also clear in 2008 that she could motivate large numbers of people who were coming out to rallies for her - as Hillary, not as Mrs Bill Clinton. (something that seems awkward to type)

I suspect that she and the people around her will give tremendous thought to how they use Bill Clinton. What 2008 showed me is that he has a very hard time taking a back seat to the person aiming to be the party's nominee. As one not happy with his behavior in 2000 or 2004, I had thought it was because a part of him really did not support Gore or Kerry. However, there was no doubt that he wanted Hillary to win as much as she did. Yet, his nickname seemed apt - he was like a big friendly dog - who stumbled into situations that did not help Hillary.

I think they will be reluctant to have them together - unlike all other couples where one is running. The reason is that during a campaign, one goal is to have people look at the candidate and see them as the leader of the country. I think this is easier without Bill Clinton in the room.

[marble falls]

12. Who else is there?

[Beacool]

13. Bruni picks a poll where everyone is down and it's Hillary he's pointing the finger at?

That same poll has Obama underwater and Congress in the depths of hell. People are just fed up with Washington, period. The government shutdown, the NSA spying, ACA launching problems, etc. have overflown the political bucket and people are tired of the constant dis functionality of Washington. There's also the constant drumbeat from the Right about Benghazi. Some are even going as far as calling her a murderer (they must have forgotten the thousands of people who died under Bush/Cheney).

I wouldn't worry about any poll three years prior to an election, particularly since the person he wrote the article about hasn't even announced that she's running.

[Whisp]

15. I think people are finally and correctly realising that Obama is taking us all forward

(and with such horrible circumstances to boot) and to elect a Clinton or anyone else from the Ministry of Doing Things the Same as 30 years ago, is taking a giant leap backwards.

Schumer and all the ones who are coming out this early to endorse Hillary are doing it to discourage other dems from running and I think that is a terrible shame but that is how they work.

The games are starting now and have been for a while, so when the laments of 'it's too early, leave Hillary alone' are posted here repeatedly, I can't take that seriously.

If the Schumers and the like are talking, we should all be talking.

[Whisp]

16. This ...

''And what would the argument for a Hillary presidency be? Something interesting happens when you ask Democrats why her in 2016. They say that it’s time for a woman, that she’ll raise oodles of dough, that other potentially strong candidates won’t dare take her on. The answers are about the process more than the person or any vision she has for the country. There’s no poetry in them. That’s not good.''

Perfect Paragraph

[BeyondGeography]

17. Someone had to write it

There are a lot of problems with Hillary 2016. The Clintons have grown far too cozy with the status quo for a country that is oozing legitimate desperation, and she and her husband are both absurdly old, in the politically damaging sense of the term.