Barring any extraordinary developments, Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. Her fundraising dominance, colossal stature in the national party and faultless credentials — she has been a Secretary of State, senator and active first lady — preclude any credible path to victory emerging for any of her likely primary opponents. Though progressives have tried to refute this claim by pointing to 2008 when her alleged inevitability yielded to President Obama’s grassroots support, this comparison quickly breaks down. There is no candidate in the field with anything close to the youthful dynamism, historic appeal and soaring oratory skills Obama possessed as a candidate eight years ago. Moreover, Clinton’s commanding edge in the polls (60 percent support among Democratic voters) far surpasses the 40 percent she held last time around.
There is cause for hope among progressives as they look to 2016. It is very possible that if Clinton’s competitors for the nomination all level concerted, persistent policy criticisms her way then she could be forced to adopt a more liberal, populist platform in several key areas. Clinton’s challengers can successfully push her to the left if they focus on issues that play well with the Democratic base, like income inequality, a cautious foreign policy and climate change.
The prospective candidates most likely to challenge Clinton for the Democratic nomination are former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Republican-turned-Independent-turned-Democrat Lincoln Chafee who has served Rhode Island as both a senator and a governor. While none of them can individually pull ahead of Clinton, each of them can create compelling contrasts between their records and Clinton’s which, if harnessed collectively, could pressure Clinton leftwards in several key areas.
The most potent criticisms of Clinton, though indirect for now, have come from O’Malley. O’Malley’s data-driven, pragmatic executive leadership in Maryland yielded a strong record of liberal accomplishments: he signed into law a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, another repealing the death penalty and coupled economic growth with modest tax increases to cut the state’s deficit from $1.7 billion to $750 million. This progressive legacy together with Clinton’s close ties to Wall Street sharpen his narrative that he is the candidate most likely to tackle income inequality — an issue of central importance to liberal and conservative voters alike. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, is also well-positioned to make vociferous and powerful arguments about the extent to which the economic system works for the extremely rich at the expense of the working and middle classes. In a recent interview with Fox News, he asserted that “99 percent of all new income today [is] going to the top one percent, and the top one tenth of one percent of America owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.” The clarity of his message, defined by facts and figures, not platitudes, can, in alliance with O’Malley’s economic narrative, compel Clinton to take on big banks and economic elites with more than just rhetoric.
Liberals must therefore hope O’Malley and Sanders can use their candidacies to direct Clinton’s general election platform to the left. Ideally, they could push her to advocate for tax reform that would close loopholes that corporations and the extremely wealthy routinely exploit, to take a stand against the provisions of the recent fast-track trade agreement that profit corporations but hurt workers and the environment, and to promote jobs, housing and educational programs that work toward equal opportunity and promote upward mobility.
A recent Vox article argued that “If Hillary Clinton wins her party's nomination, she'll be the most hawkish Democratic nominee since the Iraq War began.” This contention, and her still toxic vote in favor of the Iraq War, will undoubtedly feature prominently in foreign policy debates over the next year. Jim Webb, a former senator and Secretary of the Navy, is best positioned, as a decorated Vietnam War veteran and long-standing critic of reckless interventionism, to criticize the more hawkish elements of Clinton’s foreign policy philosophy. At the very least, more dovish candidates, particularly Webb, should use the foreign policy portions of the televised primary debates to appeal to the war-weary liberal base by highlighting the contrasts between their positions and Clinton’s.
Lincoln Chafee has a long record of support for environmental regulations from his time in the Senate — something he will use as a pivot to attract support among the greener wing of the Democratic Party. As Democratic voters become increasingly concerned about climate change, the issue should feature prominently in the primary debates. If voters think Clinton’s positions reflect a blase attitude towards climate change, then she might need to take a stand against the Keystone pipeline while also pushing for more stringent fossil fuel regulations in order to shore up support among more environmentally-conscious Democrats and independents.
For liberals, the 2016 forecast is still bright. Though Clinton doesn’t excite progressives as much as Sen. Elizabeth Warren does, there is still time for her challengers to push her left on important issues. A vibrant and impactful, if still noncompetitive, primary season is the best those on the left can hope for. The Democratic Party’s best chance of holding onto the White House is with Clinton as its nominee; in head-to-head polls with the Republican frontrunners, Clinton leads with consistent and considerable margins. Voltaire’s adage that the perfect can be the enemy of the good resonates here: the left should test, but ultimately embrace Clinton as the Democratic Party’s nominee. The nation needs its first female president and there is no one better positioned or more qualified than Hillary Clinton to take up this mantle.
Ben Rudgley is a Viewpoint writer.
Read More
P.U.M.P.K.I.N. SOCIETY: Happy Halloween 2024
By P.U.M.P.K.I.N. Society | YesterdayThis Year, The P.U.M.P.K.I.N. Society Has Chosen To Recognize 10 Fourth-Year Students Who Have Gone Above And Beyond For Their Communities.
BRUNMAN: The University’s top national ranking in free speech should not fire you up
2 days agoThe FIRE statistics indicate that the University is home to self-censorship and intolerance of controversial speech.
SULLIVAN: Student election mishaps undermine the reputation of student self-governance
By Scarlett Sullivan | 4 days agoUBE governs the main democratic avenue through which student candidates and voters can express their unique concerns about the University.
