Should Democratic Candidates Care About Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Timeline?

Long-lasting question marks around a possible Clinton presidential run could leave Democrats unprepared for 2016.

Hillary Clinton at a news conference at the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute on July 23, 2014 in Oakland, California.
National Journal
Emma Roller
July 30, 2014, 4:59 p.m.

Writ­ing about the choice in front of Hil­lary Clin­ton — a hard choice, if you will — is like an ad­vanced course in hy­po­thet­ic­als.

Try­ing to di­vine the strategy for Clin­ton’s an­nounce­ment is like graph­ing a Pun­nett square with two vari­ables. The first vari­able: Will she or won’t she run? The second: Will she an­nounce her de­cision early on, or take her sweet time?

Either way, Clin­ton’s de­cision is sure to de­light some Demo­crat­ic politi­cians and sty­mie oth­ers. If she an­nounces her can­did­acy too early, that opens the floodgates to con­ser­vat­ive at­tacks. Dia­met­ric­ally, if she an­nounces late in the game that she is not go­ing to run, oth­er Demo­crats who were wait­ing on her go-ahead may find it’s too late to build up their own cam­paigns.

It’s un­likely that Clin­ton will an­nounce early either way, which leaves us with two op­tions. Op­tion one: She an­nounces late that she is run­ning, thus con­firm­ing the idea every­one has been tak­ing for gran­ted for at least the past six months, and sink­ing every oth­er Demo­crat’s hopes of run­ning a com­pet­it­ive cam­paign. Op­tion two: Clin­ton an­nounces in early 2015 that no, she’s not run­ning — thus ren­der­ing the months of think pieces totally use­less, and open­ing up the nom­in­a­tion to someone you’re likely not think­ing too much about.

If Clin­ton de­cides not to run, it could be an enorm­ous boon to one of her fel­low Demo­crats in par­tic­u­lar. Ac­cord­ing to Steve McMa­hon, a pres­id­en­tial cam­paign vet­er­an and the cofounder of the polit­ic­al con­sult­ing firm Purple Strategies, Clin­ton’s un-can­did­acy would all but open the door for Demo­crat­ic Nom­in­ee Joe Biden, and the vice pres­id­ent wouldn’t hurt for lack of setup time.

“It’s hers to lose if she wants it, but she may not want it,” McMa­hon said. “If she doesn’t run, then there will be a big field, but the longer it takes for the field to ma­ter­i­al­ize, the weak­er every­body in it — ex­cept Joe Biden — will be.”

This the­ory, of course, dis­counts the fact that while there is a fledgling “Run, Liz, Run” move­ment there’s no “Ready for Joe” move­ment yet. A re­cent CNN poll found that 67 per­cent of likely Demo­crat­ic voters would vote for Clin­ton, with Sen. Eliza­beth War­ren and Biden each trail­ing her by at least 50 points. War­ren re­ceived 10 per­cent to Biden’s 8 per­cent.

But what a Biden can­did­acy lacks in grass­roots en­thu­si­asm would be more than made up for with a well-oiled cam­paign ap­par­at­us.

“There’s no bar­ri­er for him,” McMa­hon said. “He’s vice pres­id­ent, he’s run be­fore, he would in­her­it the bulk of the Obama cam­paign ma­chinery and people, and he would be run­ning 60 miles an hour while every­body else was put­ting on their track shoes.”

One Demo­crat­ic con­sult­ant noted that the 2016 cycle is odd be­cause of the lack of Demo­crat­ic can­did­ates who are at least openly flirt­ing with run­ning at this stage.

“It’s very strange that in 2014, you don’t see any of that,” the con­sult­ant, who asked to be quoted an­onym­ously be­cause of work with po­ten­tial can­did­ates, said. “And I think it’s be­cause many na­tion­al Demo­crats are afraid that it will look like they are po­s­i­tion­ing them­selves against Clin­ton.”

The gen­er­al at­ti­tude of the Demo­crat­ic Party leaves Clin­ton in an en­vi­able po­s­i­tion.

“I think it’s in her best in­terest to wait,” the con­sult­ant said. “That doesn’t mean it’s in the best in­terest of the Demo­crat­ic Party.”

Steve McMa­hon agrees. “Giv­en the level of or­gan­iz­a­tion that’s popped up around her, she cer­tainly isn’t harmed by wait­ing,” he said. “If I were Hil­lary Clin­ton, I would be in ab­so­lutely no hurry to de­cide or an­nounce what I’m do­ing. If I were some­body else who wants to run for pres­id­ent, I would be des­per­ate to get an an­swer from her as quickly as pos­sible.”

That des­per­a­tion has left Demo­crats (and polit­ic­al re­port­ers) look­ing for any tell-tale dog whistles from Clin­ton — trav­el­ing to Iowa or New Hamp­shire, for in­stance. But Clin­ton has been wary not to send any sig­nals.

Mean­while, oth­er na­tion­al Demo­crats have used their star power in loc­al races. War­ren re­cently head­lined a New Hamp­shire fun­draiser for Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and Mary­land Gov. Mar­tin O’Mal­ley has cam­paigned for can­did­ates in New Hamp­shire and Iowa.

But War­ren’s cam­paign work and her rising star in the party — des­pite her oft-re­peated deni­al that she is run­ning for pres­id­ent — are noth­ing com­pared with Clin­ton’s repu­ta­tion among the well-heeled Demo­crat­ic donor base. As one New York donor re­cently told the Daily Beast, “If Eliza­beth called me up and said, ‘I am think­ing of run­ning for pres­id­ent,’ I would say, ‘Eliza­beth, are you out of your [ex­plet­ive] mind?’ “

Mi­chael Mc­Curry, a former press sec­ret­ary to Bill Clin­ton, said the pres­sure for Clin­ton to an­nounce her run could be rat­cheted up, de­pend­ing on the out­come of the midterm elec­tions.

“If Demo­crats lose the Sen­ate in Novem­ber, then every Demo­crat will be­lieve that a Demo­crat­ic pres­id­ent is all that stands between a GOP Con­gress and re­vers­ing some of the pro­gress made in the last gen­er­a­tion or so,” Mc­Curry said in an email. “Be­cause if she is NOT run­ning, then someone needs time and op­por­tun­ity to build to her level of na­tion­al sup­port and name re­cog­ni­tion.”

Joe Trippi, a vet­er­an of Demo­crat­ic pres­id­en­tial cam­paigns, says oth­er Demo­crats who want to run shouldn’t hold their breath wait­ing for Clin­ton.

“There are plenty of people like Mar­tin O’Mal­ley who are out there, go­ing to Iowa, go­ing to New Hamp­shire, put­ting the fun­drais­ing struc­ture in place if they de­cide to go,” Trippi told Na­tion­al Journ­al. “And if some­body isn’t do­ing that be­cause they think Hil­lary Clin­ton’s run­ning … then they de­serve to lose.”

Clin­ton has said she would make her an­nounce­ment (and de­lete the “TBD” line from her Twit­ter bio) in “early 2015.” But what does his­tory say about when can­did­ates are likely to get in­to the race?

The New Hamp­shire primary — the first pres­id­en­tial primary in the coun­try — is of­ten used as a bench­mark for when can­did­ates should throw their hat in­to the ring. Be­fore 1972, no pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ees de­clared their can­did­acy un­til roughly six months, or 200 days, be­fore the New Hamp­shire primary. But since 1996, each party’s pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee has an­nounced his can­did­acy earli­er, ahead of that six-month mark. In 2008, both John Mc­Cain and Barack Obama an­nounced their can­did­a­cies more than 300 days ahead of the New Hamp­shire primary.

Some per­spect­ive: We are still more than 500 days out from the New Hamp­shire primary, which will take place on Jan. 26, 2016. So, go­ing by the 300-day bench­mark, Clin­ton has un­til roughly April 2015 to an­nounce her de­cision — at least. That could mean eight more ex­cru­ci­at­ing months for pun­dits and waff­ling Demo­crat­ic can­did­ates alike.

But Clin­ton could just as eas­ily wait longer to an­nounce her de­cision and draw out the sus­pense. And why not? She has every reas­on to take her time an­noun­cing a de­cision, and hold off the in­ev­it­able oppo-ava­lanche.

“I don’t think there are really any real polit­ic­al con­sequences to her for wait­ing,” Trippi said. “In fact, I think it’s to her ad­vant­age to wait as long as she wants.”

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×