Yes, Hillary will run, Yes, Hillary will win….

…the Democratic nomination.

The two biggest factions of the Democratic Party — let’s call them pragmatists and idealists, or Clintonites and Obamanistas — have all but acceded to her presidential nomination two years in advance, although Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and others will be testing her for weaknesses over the coming months.

And how I’d love to see her go down to a grand defeat at the actual election.

I’ve no objection to a female President (not that it’s my country, but) but seriously, this particular woman? Yech.

However, the rather more difficult question is which Republican could actually beat her? They’re not exactly stuffed with talent these days, are they?

32 thoughts on “Yes, Hillary will run, Yes, Hillary will win….”

  1. No Republican can beat her – none. The nuts and bolts of the primary season means that candidates have to spend months and months trying to muster enough enthusiasm from the wingnuts in their own party – by trying to one up the other candidates in how much they love Jesus and don’t love Mexicans.

    Then you have to drag the campaign back to the centre for the general, after conveniently giving the other side plenty of ammo.

    President Hilary Clinton.

  2. Dan – nah, I think the Republicans have the opposite problem.

    The people who might vote for them are heartily sick of seeing their country transformed into a colder Mexico, but the RNC has no intention of controlling the border. Their backers profit too much from cheap immigrant labour with the externalities shuffled off to the taxpayer to deal with.

    Their voters are deeply concerned about deficit spending and the size of government, but the RNC is full of professional politicians and lawyers with no intention of curbing their own influence.

    So they end up nominating uninspiring establishment figures whose message is “let’s do more or less the same thing as the Democrats do, but with a bit of lip service to the Christians, and maybe a tax cut for millionaires!”. And then the Democrats win, and the Republican brains trust concludes that they have to become even more like the Democrats.

    That’s why they’ll keep losing. With the rate of Third World immigration as it is, it won’t be long till the Democrats have an inbuilt permanent majority of voters who expect free welfare goodies anyway.

  3. Steve-

    The basic thing is that in Anglish nations the hegemonic morality is that articulated by the Democrat Party, Labour Party, etc. Whether or not we like that, it is the reality. No party articulating anything significantly oppositional to it can thus win an election; people will not vote for the immoral.

    Politics follows culture. In Britain for instance, Tony Blair was able to do what he did simply because the preferred view in Anglo society is currently that to speak against it would be immoral. He only lost his authority when he seemed to have blundered into transgressing the hegemonic morality himself, with the Iraq war.

    The election of leaders is primarily an articulation of a very ancient, prehistoric, way of doing things. The tribe has a leader. The leader’s position is predicated on his capacity to maintain the support or, at least, acquiessence of the tribe for his position. Every now and again a challenger arises- another alpha male who wants the Big Man position, and then the rest of the tribe have to decide which they will support. So the basic question that people ask at elections is not really predicated on thinking about policies, it’s a simple wisdom of crowds question that is something like, “shall we let the current guy carry on, or let this other guy have a go instead?”.

    In post-Victorian Anglish societies, the role of the leader is seen primarily as one of moral leadership, more akin to choosing a pope than a king; this has become very much more acute in recent decades (hence the vicarish tone of Tony Blair and New Labour). Leaders lose their authority when they lose the moral approval of the populace, and then the populace will swing support for the new guy; hence the Major government fell to Labour after the “sleaze” phenomenon. And at the last election Labour were eventually ousted after losing moral authority under Blair. All this is judged by a fierce sharia-like moral code we call things like Political Correctness.

    A non-PC government cannot hope to get elected in the current moral climate. One may as well hope for a Protestant Pope. It isn’t going to happen. Only by changing the moral beliefs of society are “genuine” Republicans in the USA or “genuine” Conservatives in the UK going to be able to form governments. We are not anywhere near that yet.

  4. Bloke in Central Illinois

    The Democratic nominee will win the general election. However, HRC will not be the Democratic nominee.

  5. Eh?

    Like it or no, the Democrats have an ever increasing built-in advantage when it comes to presidential elections. It’s not just the immigrant vote – (American Muslims for example, went heavily for Bush in 2000) – it’s the social issues. People under 30, by and large, just don’t agree with the GOPs position on gay rights, abortion, the awesomeness of Jesus, etc,etc.

    Plus you’ve got a GOP that’s divided into many different factions, the big-money, billionaire fellating crowd (Romney), the libertarian, non-interventionists (the Pauls), various heartland culture warriors, etc,etc. They’ll be too busy knocking the shit out of each other scrapping for the nomination and then they’ll have (have mind, there will be no choice if they want even an outside chance of winning) to tack to the centre. Which makes them look like a bunch of principle free chancers. The right wing vote by itself is not enough to win – it just isn’t.

    Plus, as Tim said – they aren’t exactly stuffed with leadership material at the moment, unless there’s some talented governor somewhere keeping his powder dry.

  6. @ Bloke in Central Illinois

    Out of interest, who do you think will win?

    I know we’ve been here before in 2008, but I don’t see another Obama style campaign flanking the Clintons again.

  7. Elizabeth Warren?

    The Republicans have a chance at the GE, I think, because of the way Obama has screwed and will further screw everything up.

    Trouble is the Dems have most of the mass media on their side, so the screw-ups are mostly not reported, together with the 47% ish of the population that they have bought one way or another, and the GOP hasn’t got anything like a standout candidate.

    (Is how I see it from the Cotswolds.)

  8. It’s a sad indictment, by the way, of a supposedly mature country in the 21st century that the colour of a candidates skin, or the arrangement of his/her anatomy, is likely to be as important, or more important, than anything else.

    Or I guess you could say it’s a reflection of the excellent lives people now lead that they can afford to vote based on such nonsense.

    Either way, the left has won, here and there, probably forever, or some sort of catastrophe, or in the States some sort of Texan independence. Their command of education and their mastery of propaganda have seen to it.

    Never mind, it was fun while it lasted!

  9. What Dan said. The Republicans are too busy with their circular firing squads on social issues to win. Until they realise that they’ve lost the culture wars, the Democrats will have a permanent majority.

  10. Bloke in Central Illinois

    No idea. Maybe another black guy – Corey Booker or Deval Patrick? Someone fresh. The Dems don’t like to nominate last election’s runner-up, that’s a Republican thing. Main thing is that Hillary just isn’t a very good politician, she will find a way to fuck this up, I’m sure of it.

  11. @Ian B
    “A non-PC government cannot hope to get elected in the current moral climate. ”
    I am not sure I agree. In countries like Holland new political parties can get a lot of votes. (Of course lefties might kill their leaders). The problem is that in the UK first past the post stop competition and people say vote x or we get y.

  12. >Their voters are deeply concerned about deficit spending and the size of government, but the RNC is full of professional politicians and lawyers with no intention of curbing their own influence.

    Some Republican voters are worried about spending, yes, but the majority of voters aren’t, because the media don’t see it as a big problem, and the politicians are all pretending things are fine. So any US federal politician who makes cutting spending an issue cannot win. (Thus the spending will continue, and the US will get closer and closer to the cliff until suddenly, years down the line, people will finally see that cliff-edge coming closer.)

  13. David-

    That appears to be an indicator that in some places PC is losing its moral authority, which is a Good Thing. But there is still a long way to go.

    PaulB’s assertion that the PC have won the culture war is true (it’s actually a “moral war”, reflected in the culture), but makes the error of presuming that once won, the moral system cannot change again. What we actually see historically, particularly in the Anglosphere, is a moral pendulum of reaction following reaction, so it is naive to consider the war “won”. In Europe, sufficient discomfort with the outcomes of the PC system is developing for a genuine reaction to start becoming credible. This is largely because associated moral policies (particularly on immigration) have now been in place long enough for the discourse to shift from “what will happen” to “what has happened”. Speaking purely for myself, this effect has led me to shift over time from being an idealist egalitarian to a regretful nationalist.

    It’s worth noting that in the USA the election of Obama was almost entirely predicated on making a moral statement (“we are not racists”). In the USA particularly, PC is still overwhelmingly the dominant approved morality, and opponents of it (in whatever way) cannot hope to win a national two horse election at this stage of the game.

  14. Ian B – nice analysis, but it does ensure that we can safely despair of getting decent proper government any time soon.

    The current moral hegemony is basically politics as X-factor, reason and by extension are the new Third rail if they involve people taking responsibility for themselves.

    Tony Blair, loathsome bastard as he is, won – all governments will be like that from now on until we are back in the fucking stone age.

    Ho hum.

  15. @ Ian B
    Blunkett was to the “right” of Michael Howard and Brown favoured the rich far more than any Conservative or Tory Chancellor in my lifetime, which is why New Labour was the only party to leave government with an increase in the inequality of wealth since WWII (?possibly since 1815, but I don’t have data going back that far).
    So PC has zilch to do with policy and is defined by those who control the BBC or the US equivalent. Murdoch makes his money by exploiting the gap for those who who don’t want to listen to PC (except in China where he is not allowed to do so)
    More to follow

  16. @ BiCI
    How about holding a pistol to Mrs Powell’s head to get Colin Powell to run (holding to his head would be laughed away)? I don’t know how you could persuade Condi Rice, but there may be one.
    I don’t have a vote in the USA but I was rooting for Obama to get the Democrat nomination solely because he was not Hillary even though the statistics said he was the most left-wing member of the US Senate and he got elected to the Senate because he had married into a dynasty of Democrat Chicago fixers – just as Joe Kennedy did in Boston.

  17. @ BiI
    Most people did *not* regard Tony Blair as loathsome, which is why he won elections. Very many people regard Gordon Brown as loathsome and he lost.

  18. The Republicans have a much tougher sell than the Democrats.

    The Ds are up front wanting to control everything, gov essentially owns everything, & tax & tax some more, and any who try to escape with their money, which is not recognized as such, are to be restrained as with Corp Inversions & calls for loyalty oaths. (The D-states are also making new laws to extract more from departing citizens). Apparently around 50% buy it so they only need a few more,. . . or they need the R-base to divide a little.

    The Rs sell smaller gov, lower taxes, gov is the problem, not the solution, etc, with no such intention so the sell is tougher with discord in its ranks. They depend upon the Ds going too far in one administration.

    Sippican Cottage puts it:

    “The government at all levels is all coercion, all the time, about everything, and in their hearts most government functionaries of both parties have a profound contempt for their constituents, and get elected solely on assembling a coalition of voters with a profound contempt of just less than half their fellow citizens.”

  19. “pragmatists and idealists”

    Yer avina larf intcha?

    There is one difference between her and Obama.

    And no, gender doesn’t apply…

  20. I hope that the ME catastrophe makes her unelectable. I hope that the MSM are mobilised by the horror to do the bits of due diligence they omitted to do on Obama and explode her very close working and personal relationship with Huma Abeddin and HA’s very close working and personal relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. The preconditions for what is happening now were all laid during her period as Secretary of State.

  21. BinCIL nailed it: “Hillary just isn’t a very good politician”. HRC has zero charisma, and certainly in the past 30 years of US elections charisma has been a prerequisite for election – arguable in the case of Bush Sr, but then he was riding the Reagan wave in his first election, and came crashing down in his second when it was no longer there.
    Take a look at Barbara Olson’s “Hell To Pay” bio of HRC; Barbara was a Republican, but her book made clear how personable (and genuinely non-racist) Bill was in contrast to Hill.
    After being in public view for so long, and giving opponents so much ammunition to hit her with (Benghazi, “what difference does it make” etc.) HRC is at a serious disadvantage *if* the Republicans can come up with a plausible contender. Rand Paul has been getting a lot of airtime and is very electable, but I don’t know if the elephants can overcome their self-destructive insider tendencies and actually nominate him.

  22. IanB – it turned out that being folksy and poor at public speaking was surprisingly endearing to the marginal demographic. He was pretty good at extemporaneous speaking, see WTC site speech to rescue workers for example.

  23. Dubya has a certain “Boris J” sort of bumbling charm and wit. I think that swung it for him to a degree, a bit like I’d probably be keener on voting for a Boris led Tory party than one led by Cameron (even though I suspect in my heart I’ve little more in common with Boris than Dave).

  24. Tim, I agree that if HC survives the ME fallout & her health problems she’ll get nominated.
    And it’s most likely that she’ll then win the presidency.
    That’s because of the demographics.
    In the last presidential election every white demographic voted for Romney. If that had happened 12 years earlier, Obama would have lost. But the increased non-white % of voters gave him a win.
    In 2 years time, Obama will have further pumped up that minority vote with his executive amnesty and Holder will have further tweaked the Dem’s splendid vote-rigging machine for the black vote, notable by blocking voter ID.

  25. Bloke in Central Illinois

    I wouldn’t say that GWB had charisma. He was somewhat more likeable than the Gorebot, which was enough (barely).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *