« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Could Hillary Run as an Independent?
If she went about it right, she would probably start out ahead of where Ross Perot started in 1992. She could count on a large, committed campaign structure in all 50 states and probably a 20 to 30 percent share of the polls. She would have all the media coverage she wanted.
A three-way race lowers the threshold for victory. Her husband won the presidency with 43 percent of the vote. If she took enough of those big blue states like New York, Ohio, and California, she could let Obama take the Washingtons and Maines and McCain could have the south.
The rift that has opened is basically an organic result of the party-within-a-party that is her campaign, a core of powerful, professional leaders and consultants who know how things work. If they could find the money, I suspect many of them would push for it.
In the fall, the force of the issues would continue to buoy up both her campaign as well as Obama’s; There’s plenty of disaffection to go around, and it’s an expanding group. The pie, as they say, is getting higher.
She could appeal to a 'vast' middle ground that’s uncomfortable continuing Bush’s policies, as McCain inevitably would, but that is equally unwilling to go with the unknown reformist, progressive path that Obama represents. Hillary Clinton would attempt to offer the best of both worlds: an orderly revolution.
In the most unsentimental analysis, defeating Obama is at least as important a task for her to become president as defeating McCain, so even if she was only able to prevent Obama’s election, it would get her closer to the White House.
What has happened to Hillary Clinton is similar to what happened to her old friend Joe Lieberman in 2006. His constituency, and, more importantly, his Democratic base, became disaffected with their representation. They saw a leader who was not leading on anything. They saw a leader who was wholeheartedly supporting George Bush’s war and many of them were greatly disturbed. When given a viable option in the form of Ned Lamont, Democratic voters bolted for the ‘change’ candidate.
Our democracy is so sclerotic that this was a surprising development. Typically, people who gain congressional office in this country hold it for as long as they wish to hold it. Short of death or scandal, our elected representatives are customarily given the benefit of the doubt. Not that they should be, but this is the way things go in a prosperous society. There is not a whole lot of oversight when everyone’s getting a little taste, or at least when everyone imagines that they are.
I don’t think Hillary will run as an independent, because she isn’t one. She doesn’t have a great deal of support in that nebulous third of the population that somehow can’t align themselves with either party no matter how glaring the contrast. She also doesn't seem to have the money any more.
However, I am wary of her and Bill’s successful exploitation of the mythical ‘third way.’ It would be entirely plausible for Hillary Clinton and her camp, who probably see themselves about to be effectively shut out not just from the government, but from their own party, to reinvent themselves as the new ‘third way’ moderates who have been unfairly ousted by elitist insurgents.
It worked very well for Senator Lieberman.
Comments (27)
P.s.: I fail at formatting paragraphs.
June 2, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
and Election Law 101 too
June 2, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Money is the kicker. Who'd want to finance her campaign? Running against McCain and Obama, I really don't see her winning.
She'd hand victory to McCain by splitting the left and middle, sure. But unless she could get Republican to back her run financially (and they seem to have hard enough time raising money for McCain), I just don't see it.
What platform would she run on? AWW - Angry White Women?
That's not to say she won't at least threaten to run as an independent.
June 2, 2008 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, she's managed to scrape by with large amounts of debt through the primary, so why couldn't she conceivably keep scraping by all the way to November?
June 2, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because at some point, folks will want to get paid. She can delay the payments, but not forever.
Even if Hillary sunk the entire Clinton fortune into this (and I highly doubt that's something she or Bill wants to do), Obama can still outraise her.
June 2, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but she will definitely lose, and then end up like Lieberman getting ousted from the party.
8 years from now we'll see Hillary cozying up with a Republican candidate, maybe Condoleezza Rice during Condi bid for the White House in 2016 against sitting Vice President Kathleen Sebelius.
June 2, 2008 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
(I) Hillary Clinton. Your future president, thank you for this endorsement.
Leading the AWW vote!
Leading for Joe Lieberman's vote!
Leading you all!
Much Love,
Hillary - I'll see you in Denver.
June 2, 2008 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. It would satisfy her ego and her pathological need for self-destruction, but she's got no financial backing for such an endeavor and it would leave her with nowhere to turn when it was over. I think, ultimately, she's smart enough to realize that this particular kamikaze move would sink her career and she still actually cares about that.
June 2, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the immortal words of Rod Tidwell
Show Me the Money!
June 2, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because we all know how much Obama did to distance himself from Lieberman in past years:
June 2, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
And then when Ned Lamont won the Democratic primary, Sen. Obama, kept it word and went out and campaigned for the Democratic nominiee. He actually did it. It wasn't half-assed like the other Senators who had said that they'd do it, but instead chose to send Lamnot $1000 from their PACs.
June 2, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would guarantee a victory for John McCain, an outcome which she appears to be working toward already. Not that that seems to be a concern of hers, particularly.
June 2, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
After seeing scenes from that travesty at the RBC I am also inclined to think they might run Independently.
June 2, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rick:
On the contrary, if she did this it would definitely hand the election to Obama.
There is no way ANY of the 3 would amass anywhere near 270 EVs - and thus the election would be thrown in the NEW House of Representatives - where Obama would almost certainly prevail.
However - the risks are far too great for anyone to consider this option - no matter how Machiavellian it appears to be.
It would make for an excellent political novel, however
June 2, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's the female Joe Lieberman hawk neo liberal. She'd surely show her true stripes, and I'd take great joy watching the Democratic Party unifying to completely turn their backs on her. The Clintons completely burned and turned their backs on African-Americans this primary season, and if their former adoring loyal constituency made the Hillary dead to them, imagine what the rest of the Democratic Party will do.
This would essentially hand the election to John McCain and completely destroy her politcal future, if she hasn't done it already. She will be Ralph Nader 2.0, but at least he has dignity.
Comics:
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/080530/cx_rrogers_umedia/20083005
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20080531/cx_bs_uc/bs20080531
June 2, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who would Rendell support in PA, who would Bayh support in Indiana? All of those Supers who endorsed her would be supremely pissed off at her as well and all would likely work to bury her. How many of those 17M primary voters would really vote for the independent run? They were voting for her in the Democratic primary after all so most see themselves as Democrats.
I think Hillary and her hardcore and lunatic fringe supporters who are clamoring for an independent run would be in for a huge rude awakening. I think they overestimate their size and power in the echo chamber of her supporter sites.
June 2, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
political suicide. The democrats would ostracize her permanently. (although John McCain would be delighted).
June 2, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
We could all chip in to buy Hillary a Corvair convertible for her cross-country campaign tour.
June 2, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's the money. That's a biggie.
She'd also have to figure out what parts of her team are going to bolt, see what parts of her infrastructure on the ground are left, then pull that together and get the signatures required to get herself on the ballot in each state. She didn't really build a state infrastructure in many "unimportant" states. Her strategy was a "big states matter", so she *might* not even make it on the ballot in some states without access to the democrat's network.
A presidential campaign is something that is planned WELL in advance. So far all independent presidential candidates have failed - regardless of preparation. Hillary has not put one iota into planning an independent run while she would be going up against a top-notch organization in full stride AND facing down the GOP meat grinder. There isn't even any real polling data (except maybe done by Penn - but good luck with THAT: "Look! Clinton is doing well with 'Cougars'! Let's have her campaign in singles bars and give out dildos!").
I just don't see her trying it at the last minute especially after such a long and intense primary fight.
June 2, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it’s unlikely because of:
a) the money, and
b) the fury of the backlash.
However, she does operate in the political spectrum between McCain and Obama, claiming the ‘Reagan Democrats.’ Her organization has been very active in identifying and solidifying these voters. With enough sharp elbowing, she might open up a spot right there in the middle, where people are still undecided.
What the Clinton campaign needs is sufficient pretext. If they can plausibly say that they have been cheated out of what should rightfully be theirs (remember the 2000 election), they can walk away from the Democratic party and nominate themselves. The rules committee meeting was interesting in that you saw the Clinton campaign in the person of Harold Ickes almost courting rejection.
Let’s face it, with the Democratic party and their pesky rules out of the way, and a certifiably independent status, she could really make a run at it. She would get a fresh look as a bold fighter. In it to win it.
As for money, I suspect Republicans might find a way to get her funded.
Again, I don’t think she would do it, but it has to have at least crossed her mind.
June 2, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
nice try, but the California Election code bars a candidate from appearing on the General Election Ballot if that candidate also appeared on the Primary election ballot and failed to win his party's nomination
Hillary ran in the California Democratic election for President
she can only appear on the General Election ballot as the Democratic Nominee, and that ain't gonna happen
so that puts a insurmountable hole in Hillary's electoral numbers
still think hillary could win as an independent ???
joezoe torturman's betrayal of party ain't legal in most states
you need to study some election laws
June 2, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's another reason it's improbable that she would try it, though I imagine there's a bit more flexibility to election law than is at first apparent, particularly for a group of lawyers.
However, I do think she could win. She almost won the Democratic nomination for president.
June 2, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
only in Connecticut
everywhere else
participation in one party's primary process pretty much precludes participation in the general under another party or as an independent
joezoe torturman brought it up in 2006, and I'm surprised Connecticut hasn't fixed the joezoe loophole yet
primary elections are essentially creatures of the party here in California, and I can live with that
this deals with a specific issue called "ballot access", and that is kinda strict in most places (numbers of required signatures, registered voters requirement and district eligibility considerations, etc)
It's the one place where the will of the voters can be routinely overturned by the courts
June 2, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been listening her rhetoric very carefully for exactly this reason. This whole "the Democratic party has abandoned women/working-class voters/Florida and Michigan (and maybe even Texas)" stuff sounds to me like an early warning sign of backing out of the party and making an Independent run. She would be leaving the party because the party had betrayed her--and millions of voters--not due to any kind of megalomaniacal fantasies.
My guess is that if not now, in 2012 we’ll be hearing: she’s baaaack.
June 2, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been listening her rhetoric very carefully for exactly this reason. This whole "the Democratic party has abandoned women/working-class voters/Florida and Michigan (and maybe even Texas)" stuff sounds to me like an early warning sign of backing out of the party and making an Independent run. She would be leaving the party because the party had betrayed her--and millions of voters--not due to any kind of megalomaniacal fantasies.
My guess is that if not now, in 2012 we’ll be hearing: she’s baaaack.
June 2, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Sorry: I got an error message saying my reply couldn't be posted, and here it is repeating...)
June 2, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't had time to read all the responses thoroughly, so forgive me if I say something redundant.
Just very briefly and quickly, I find myself somewhat intrigued by the idea of a centrist/moderate 3td party along Clintonism/DLC/Northeastern Republican lines: Let the loons HAVE the current Dem & Republican habitat, and light-out on our own "Brooks Brothers riot" for more sensible terrain. I'm not sure Bill and HRC couldn't pull it off, in the highly unlikely event they were so inclined
Just a whimsical thought, but I find that I often have a sort of early-radar system for ideas like this. If it's crossing MY mind (even in a semi-serious, half-baked way), it's likely to be crossing other minds as well before long.
June 2, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment