Just a few weeks ago, everybody thought Hillary Clinton would cruise to the Democratic nomination. But with recent revelations — the private email account, the foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation — where does she stand now?
The short answer: she’s probably fine.
The longer answer requires some background about Democratic voters. While they all generally want more government, different groups have different priorities. This is why identity — racial, ethnic, and class — is so important in that party.
There are several groups to consider.
First, upscale liberals. They are mostly white, and prioritize issues like the environment, abortion, money in politics, and gay rights. Obama won them in 2008. These are the voters encouraging Elizabeth Warren to run, and they may take a look at Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Their numbers are not overwhelming, but their high participation rate makes them potent in low-turnout caucuses.
Second, the white working class. Historically the backbone of the Democratic party, it has shifted to the GOP. Those who remain are usually women. This was a strong Clinton constituency in 2008. Former Senator Jim Webb’s angle to the nomination runs through here, although it is hard to envision him beating Clinton among these voters.
Third, African Americans. With the white working class voting Republican, black voters now dominate the Southern primaries, and are very powerful in the Rust Belt. Obama trounced Clinton with this group in 2008.
Fourth, Latinos. Often lumped in the same category as African Americans (via the ubiquitous and grating term, “non-white”), they behave differently. In 2008, Latino Democrats voted strongly for Clinton, even as African Americans supported Obama.
Fifth, the financiers. Historically, organized labor raised much of the party’s cash, but unions have collapsed. The major donors today are wealthy liberals (e.g. Hollywood) and government rent-seekers (e.g. trial lawyers and big banks). Their voting strength is not great, but their money makes them indispensable. In 2008, they split between Clinton and Obama.
Clinton’s coalition in 2008 — anchored by the financiers, Latinos, and the white working class — was too small to win. And it would again fall short against Obama’s coalition in a repeat next year. Still, Clinton is much stronger this cycle — for two reasons.
First, the field is much weaker. Nobody who has expressed interest in the nomination has the potential to build the coalition Obama did. He united (half of) the financiers, upscale liberals, and African Americans — an impressive sampling from diverse constituencies. Warren, Biden, Webb, etc. cannot rebuild this coalition, and it is hard to see how could they forge an alternative to challenge Clinton’s vote.
Warren probably has the greatest upside potential. She could run well with upscale liberals, and maybe develop a multi-racial coalition by railing against income inequality. The party’s corporate sponsors will resist her, which means she’ll still need some wealthy benefactors to funnel money through a Super PAC. All told, that is a very small needle to thread, which might be why she is disclaiming any interest. Meanwhile, Sanders is too quirky to go anywhere. Joe Biden, Martin O’Malley, and Webb have small constituencies, and the financiers have expressed little desire to help them grow their appeal.
Second, there is no desire among the party brass for a protracted struggle. Boastful rhetoric about the “coalition of the ascendant” notwithstanding, Democrats have good reason to worry. It is hard to win a third consecutive presidential term, harder still with the incumbent unpopular, as Obama has been for most of this term. A quick consolidation around Clinton helps the party’s electoral chances, especially if the GOP battle is bloody.
So, what changes in light of the new revelations? For one thing, Clinton’s troubles do not make the rest of the field stronger. Regardless of her problems, the others will struggle to draw enough voters from the party’s motley crew of constituencies.
There have been times when a Democrat with narrow appeal still won the nomination. McGovern in 1972, Carter in 1976, Dukakis in 1988, and Bill Clinton in 1992 all triumphed over such limits. Their victories came against multi-candidate fields where nobody else was a stand-out. Those races were raucous, lengthy, and unpredictable.
Maybe Clinton is diminished enough that we see such chaos in 2016. Maybe Webb and Biden poach some of the white working class, Sanders and Warren pick off some upscale whites, and O’Malley pulls some financiers. In this scenario, no single candidate overwhelms her, but together they diminish her. Chaos ensues, and a dark horse triumphs in the end.
The problem with this is that the Clintons are such a known quantity — and the latest scandals are so thoroughly Clintonian — it is hard to see many Democrats shifting, at least absent new revelations. Is the email issue going to hurt Clinton with the white working class, with Latinos, with donors from Goldman Sachs? Maybe a little, but probably not much. People’s minds are made up about the Clintons — and those who were with her in 2008 will probably stay with her. Maybe the new revelations will keep her from pulling in much of Obama’s coalition, but as long as it stays scattered among several candidates, she should still win.
The more worrisome proposition for Clinton is if somebody new gets into the game. For instance, Al Gore is heading to Iowa in May. Clinton should worry about Gore. He is not a natural campaigner, and he may be rusty. But he fights like hell, knows how to raise money, and could steal enough from the party’s various groups to be a real threat.
She should also worry about Deval Patrick, the former governor of Massachusetts. So far, he has not signaled much interest in running, and maybe he never will. But he could rebuild the Obama coalition. Moreover, Patrick is close to some of Obama’s top strategists, who know how to do just that.
Still, Clinton is lucky this time around. Beyond Patrick and (maybe) Gore, there are not many formidable backups. In theory the governor of California should be able to mount a tough challenge, but in practice Jerry Brown is too iconoclastic. Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, should be formidable, but he has ethical clouds of his own. Perhaps the luckiest break Clinton caught is that John Edwards’ name is now synonymous with mud. If he had the same reputation as he had a decade ago, he would be a threat.
While Clinton has been weakened by the latest news, the Democratic field is so lackluster, and top Democrats so averse to another lengthy battle, that it probably does not matter. Of course, Clinton is not worry-free: Warren could pull off the political equivalent of a 7-10 split; Gore or Patrick could toss in; more damaging revelations could come to light. But her core strengths this cycle have mostly to do with the party’s weakness — and even if the recent news has diminished her, she still towers over the rest of the party.
Jay Cost is a staff writer at the Weekly Standard. His new book, A Republic No More: Big Government and the Rise of American Political Corruption, is now available.
