I've never been a believer in inevitability but, as Nate Cohn explains, 2016 is different

[wyldwolf]

Whenever I mention that Hillary Clinton is an overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination — and would be even if Senator Elizabeth Warren ran — the conversation usually comes back to 2008. “She was supposed to be inevitable last time,” the refrain goes, “and she lost.”

I get it. I remember that Mrs. Clinton was “inevitable,” and I see why today’s discussions of Mrs. Clinton’s strength sound familiar.

But there is no equivalence between Mrs. Clinton’s strength then and now. She was never inevitable eight years ago. If a candidate has ever been inevitable — for the nomination — it is Mrs. Clinton today.

She was certainly a strong candidate in 2008. But by this time in that cycle, it was already clear that she would not cruise to the nomination. Yes, she held an impressive 40 percent or so of the Democratic vote in national polls, leading Senator Barack Obama by 15 points. That, however, is not inevitability.

Candidates with a case for inevitability — the ones who started as big favorites and won the nomination without a long fight, like Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000 and Bob Dole in 1996 — all held at least 50 percent of the vote in early polls, and led their opposition by enormous margins. The record of candidates with similar standing to Mrs. Clinton, like Gerald Ford in 1976 or Ted Kennedy in 1980, is not at all perfect. Kennedy lost, and Ford faced a protracted contest.

Flash-forward to 2015. No candidate, excluding incumbent presidents, has ever fared so well in the early primary polls as Mrs. Clinton. She holds about 60 percent of the vote of Democratic voters, a tally dwarfing the 40 percent she held this time in the last election cycle.

If anything, in the 2008 cycle the national polls overstated Mrs. Clinton’s strength. She trailed in Iowa polls from the very start. She led in New Hampshire and South Carolina only by single digits, making it easy to imagine how the winner of Iowa could gain momentum and go on to defeat her in following contests.

Her vulnerabilities were obvious. Her vote to authorize the war in Iraq was a serious liability; so were reservations about another Clinton in the White House. Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Gore or Mr. Dole, Mrs. Clinton faced two top-tier challengers, the former vice-presidential nominee John Edwards and Mr. Obama, a rising star thanks in part to his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

----- snip-----

The fact that Mrs. Clinton seems poised to clear the field is the surest evidence that 2016 is not 2008. It means that Ms. Warren is getting a very different message from the one Mr. Obama received when Senator Harry Reid reportedly urged him to seek the presidency. Instead, many of the first people to endorse Mr. Obama in 2008, like Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, have already endorsed Mrs. Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-inevitability-this-time-is-different.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

[DCBob]

1. It feels like Bob Dole.. inevitable but no excitement.

She needs a message that resonates.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. "War and Wall Street 2016"

And in addition to a killer slogan, Hillary's Maginot Line campaign trategy ensures protection from sniping - more than 200 economic advisors! I understand that 83 of them are dedicated to Goldman's stock price alone.