Hillary Clinton’s Candidacy in Questions
Published in Le Journal de Montréal
(Canada) on 12 April 2015
by Pierre Martin (link to original)
(Canada) on 12 April 2015
by Pierre Martin (link to original)
Translated from
by Emily France.
Edited by Alison Lacey.
Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for the presidency today. Here are my responses to some questions that many are now posing. And, unlike politicians, I answer yes or no.
However, before reading my responses to your questions, take two short minutes to watch the video announcing the kick-off of the Clinton 2016 campaign. It’s spring, meaning people are preparing to do all sorts of things. Hillary Clinton is launching a campaign for the presidency.
1. Will Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination?
Yes. Hillary Clinton will win, and she will be the Democratic candidate in November 2016. Of course, this is what was said around this time in 2007. So, how can we be so sure this time? First, her lead in the polls of Democratic supporters is much higher than it was then. In spring 2007, Hillary Clinton’s lead over a young and relatively unknown senator from Illinois with an exotic name was only 10 to 15 percentage points. The former first lady’s base hovered around 35 percent (chiefly among older Democrats), while Barack Obama was estimated at 20 to 25 percent (he dominated among young voters). There were a lot of undecided voters.
Today, all the recent polls show Hillary Clinton winning against her major opponents, whether declared or potential, with more than 60 percent of Democratic support. Without taking away from the merits of Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee, none of them could gain as much support among young voters or any other group to get far enough ahead of Clinton to win.
However, polls are not enough. Two additional indicators must be considered: money and internal support. In terms of money, Hillary Clinton is at about the same place as in 2007, but none of her opponents has a machine ready to compete with her in the coming months, while Hillary lines her pockets to finance her primary campaign. The extent of her network and contacts, already well-established with major donors, will permit her to avoid spending too much precious campaign time in private events with rich contributors instead of with ordinary voters. This will all be to her advantage.
In terms of internal support, which is usually the best leading indicator of a candidate’s chances of winning in a leadership race or American primary, Hillary Clinton’s lead is far beyond that of her last campaign. Around this time in 2007, she had only received the support of one senator. Today, she has already received public backing from 27 of the 44 Democratic senators: an unprecedented level of support for a candidate who is not already president.
Unless there is a catastrophe or a revelation with cataclysmic consequences about her or her husband, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate in 2016. If you want to bet on someone else, you know where to reach me.
2. Will the Democrats have more of a chance of winning with Hillary Clinton than with another candidate?
No, not really. In the next few days, we’ll hear a lot of commentators say or write that Clinton’s candidacy gives the Democrats an edge in the 2016 race. In practice, however, the candidate’s identity doesn’t really affect the results of a presidential election. You can say what you will about the length and enormous costs of the primary election cycle, but this selection process has two big advantages for political parties. First, the candidates that emerge victorious can only be skilled politicians and very effective campaigners. Second, the length and intensity of this selection process has the advantage of transforming the relatively unknown into stars and champions of their party.
3. But current polls show Hillary Clinton largely winning against all the potential Republican candidates, which isn’t the case for the other Democrats. So, it’s in the bag for her, right?
No. It’s true that almost all the polls showing Hillary Clinton against all the Republican candidates have her leading by a comfortable margin. One survey alone, conducted on behalf of Fox News in March, puts Clinton neck and neck with Jeb Bush. Political scientists often play dumb in discussions on this subject during the pre-election year in the United States. Despite all the attention given to the poll standings of potential candidates, the correlation between the presidential election results and the results of polls conducted a year and a half in advance is, for all purposes, practically null. In other words, you could predict the result just as well with a coin toss. I will have the opportunity to write about prediction models for American elections later, but for now I’ll just say that these kinds of polls aren’t part of them.
4. Some say that the lack of serious opposition in the Democratic campaign will hurt Hillary Clinton and decrease her chances of winning in 2016. Is that true?
No. In fact, if the margin of victory makes any difference, it would be to the (marginal) advantage of the leader. Certain commentators say that the absence of serious opposition in the primary cycle could lead a candidate to “get rusty” and that she could be less prepared to face the music in fall 2016. This kind of analysis makes for a good story, but has no basis in fact. On the contrary, since American parties began relying on the electorate to choose their candidates, there has been a positive and significant correlation between the share of electoral support they receive in their own party and their performance in the general election. In fact, one researcher who has created a small industry in election forecasting in the United States, Helmut Norpoth, maintains that performance in the primaries is the best indicator of success in the general election. As to whether Mrs. Clinton could “get rusty,” that seems unlikely. If she has no opposition among the primary candidates, the media won’t hesitate to fill this role and keep her on her toes. Maybe we could come up with an example of this kind of phenomenon in Quebec if we bothered to think a little.
5. Hillary Clinton has a lot of baggage, including the recent scandal triggered by her use of a private email account. This will all end up bringing her down, right?
No, not really. I already mentioned this [scandal] in my first column in the journal. Support for Clinton has not really been affected in a significant way by this issue, and all of her past baggage is already part of voters’ opinion of her.
6. Is that it?
Of course not. Another question one might ask is whether the fact that she is woman will make a difference (I don’t believe so), among others. So we are not done talking about Hillary Clinton. Whether you like her or not, she is a political phenomenon.
However, before reading my responses to your questions, take two short minutes to watch the video announcing the kick-off of the Clinton 2016 campaign. It’s spring, meaning people are preparing to do all sorts of things. Hillary Clinton is launching a campaign for the presidency.
1. Will Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination?
Yes. Hillary Clinton will win, and she will be the Democratic candidate in November 2016. Of course, this is what was said around this time in 2007. So, how can we be so sure this time? First, her lead in the polls of Democratic supporters is much higher than it was then. In spring 2007, Hillary Clinton’s lead over a young and relatively unknown senator from Illinois with an exotic name was only 10 to 15 percentage points. The former first lady’s base hovered around 35 percent (chiefly among older Democrats), while Barack Obama was estimated at 20 to 25 percent (he dominated among young voters). There were a lot of undecided voters.
Today, all the recent polls show Hillary Clinton winning against her major opponents, whether declared or potential, with more than 60 percent of Democratic support. Without taking away from the merits of Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee, none of them could gain as much support among young voters or any other group to get far enough ahead of Clinton to win.
However, polls are not enough. Two additional indicators must be considered: money and internal support. In terms of money, Hillary Clinton is at about the same place as in 2007, but none of her opponents has a machine ready to compete with her in the coming months, while Hillary lines her pockets to finance her primary campaign. The extent of her network and contacts, already well-established with major donors, will permit her to avoid spending too much precious campaign time in private events with rich contributors instead of with ordinary voters. This will all be to her advantage.
In terms of internal support, which is usually the best leading indicator of a candidate’s chances of winning in a leadership race or American primary, Hillary Clinton’s lead is far beyond that of her last campaign. Around this time in 2007, she had only received the support of one senator. Today, she has already received public backing from 27 of the 44 Democratic senators: an unprecedented level of support for a candidate who is not already president.
Unless there is a catastrophe or a revelation with cataclysmic consequences about her or her husband, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate in 2016. If you want to bet on someone else, you know where to reach me.
2. Will the Democrats have more of a chance of winning with Hillary Clinton than with another candidate?
No, not really. In the next few days, we’ll hear a lot of commentators say or write that Clinton’s candidacy gives the Democrats an edge in the 2016 race. In practice, however, the candidate’s identity doesn’t really affect the results of a presidential election. You can say what you will about the length and enormous costs of the primary election cycle, but this selection process has two big advantages for political parties. First, the candidates that emerge victorious can only be skilled politicians and very effective campaigners. Second, the length and intensity of this selection process has the advantage of transforming the relatively unknown into stars and champions of their party.
3. But current polls show Hillary Clinton largely winning against all the potential Republican candidates, which isn’t the case for the other Democrats. So, it’s in the bag for her, right?
No. It’s true that almost all the polls showing Hillary Clinton against all the Republican candidates have her leading by a comfortable margin. One survey alone, conducted on behalf of Fox News in March, puts Clinton neck and neck with Jeb Bush. Political scientists often play dumb in discussions on this subject during the pre-election year in the United States. Despite all the attention given to the poll standings of potential candidates, the correlation between the presidential election results and the results of polls conducted a year and a half in advance is, for all purposes, practically null. In other words, you could predict the result just as well with a coin toss. I will have the opportunity to write about prediction models for American elections later, but for now I’ll just say that these kinds of polls aren’t part of them.
4. Some say that the lack of serious opposition in the Democratic campaign will hurt Hillary Clinton and decrease her chances of winning in 2016. Is that true?
No. In fact, if the margin of victory makes any difference, it would be to the (marginal) advantage of the leader. Certain commentators say that the absence of serious opposition in the primary cycle could lead a candidate to “get rusty” and that she could be less prepared to face the music in fall 2016. This kind of analysis makes for a good story, but has no basis in fact. On the contrary, since American parties began relying on the electorate to choose their candidates, there has been a positive and significant correlation between the share of electoral support they receive in their own party and their performance in the general election. In fact, one researcher who has created a small industry in election forecasting in the United States, Helmut Norpoth, maintains that performance in the primaries is the best indicator of success in the general election. As to whether Mrs. Clinton could “get rusty,” that seems unlikely. If she has no opposition among the primary candidates, the media won’t hesitate to fill this role and keep her on her toes. Maybe we could come up with an example of this kind of phenomenon in Quebec if we bothered to think a little.
5. Hillary Clinton has a lot of baggage, including the recent scandal triggered by her use of a private email account. This will all end up bringing her down, right?
No, not really. I already mentioned this [scandal] in my first column in the journal. Support for Clinton has not really been affected in a significant way by this issue, and all of her past baggage is already part of voters’ opinion of her.
6. Is that it?
Of course not. Another question one might ask is whether the fact that she is woman will make a difference (I don’t believe so), among others. So we are not done talking about Hillary Clinton. Whether you like her or not, she is a political phenomenon.
Previous article![]( "Redemption")
Next article![]( "The Way Forward")
