Political Connections

How Hillary Clinton Could Lose by Winning

She needs to figure out a way inspire young voters who will be crucial in November.

Hillary Clinton signs an autograph for a supporter during a campaign event in Knoxville, Iowa.
AP Photo/Mary Altaffer
Feb. 3, 2016, 8 p.m.

Hil­lary Clin­ton’s close call in Iowa has giv­en her new reas­on to re­flect on the old ad­age that his­tory re­peats it­self—first as tragedy, then as farce.

Surely for Clin­ton it was one thing to lose Iowa, and the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­a­tion, to the 2008 edi­tion of Barack Obama, a comet of a can­did­ate, trail­ing cha­risma and his­tor­ic­al pos­sib­il­ity. In that race she was a for­mid­able can­did­ate her­self: I re­mem­ber think­ing that, apart from Bill Clin­ton, the only re­cent Demo­crat­ic nom­in­ee who might have beaten either Hil­lary Clin­ton or Obama was the oth­er. Hil­lary Clin­ton’s tragedy was that her chance to be­come the first wo­man pres­id­ent was ec­lipsed by Obama’s op­por­tun­ity to shat­ter, ar­gu­ably, an even more pro­found bar­ri­er.

This time, Clin­ton is sweat­ing against a can­did­ate con­spicu­ously lack­ing Obama’s nat­ur­al gifts. Bernie Sanders is a rumpled 74-year-old demo­crat­ic so­cial­ist who didn’t call him­self a Demo­crat un­til last year. His power base is a state that is a na­tion­al force in maple syr­up and funky ice-cream fla­vors (via loc­al her­oes Ben & Jerry). He honed his polit­ic­al skills on the mean streets of Bur­l­ing­ton. With his el­eg­ant and icy cool, Obama evoked com­par­is­ons to John F. Kennedy; Sanders has been in­delibly im­per­son­ated by Larry Dav­id. As a pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate, Sanders has dis­played genu­ine polit­ic­al tal­ents. But if los­ing to Obama reached the level of tragedy for Clin­ton, fail­ing against Sanders would qual­i­fy as farce.

Even after Iowa’s photo fin­ish, that’s not an im­me­di­ate risk. In Iowa, Sanders man­aged to ad­vance bey­ond his ini­tial beach­head of young­er voters and well-edu­cated white lib­er­als—the same “wine track” con­stitu­ency that couldn’t provide enough votes to nom­in­ate pre­vi­ous Demo­crat­ic hope­fuls such as Eu­gene Mc­Carthy, Gary Hart, and Bill Brad­ley. Sanders also ran evenly with Clin­ton among white voters in Iowa without a col­lege edu­ca­tion, ac­cord­ing to the elec­tion-night en­trance poll, mak­ing work­ing-class in­roads that gen­er­ally eluded his wine-track pre­de­cessors. Yet Sanders still must cross two big hurdles be­fore he can truly threaten Clin­ton. He faced gap­ing de­fi­cits in Iowa among minor­it­ies, and also among all voters who iden­ti­fied as Demo­crats (Sanders re­lied on big mar­gins among in­de­pend­ent voters who par­ti­cip­ated in the caucus.) Without sub­stan­tial im­prove­ments on both fronts, he can’t win the nom­in­a­tion. Full stop.

But wheth­er or not Sanders ul­ti­mately de­feats Clin­ton, he has quickly spot­lighted a glar­ing weak­ness in her can­did­acy: an in­spir­a­tion gap, par­tic­u­larly among the young. This may be where Clin­ton’s 2008 and 2016 ex­per­i­ences most con­verge. Clin­ton also lagged badly with young people com­pared to Obama. In that race, exit polls across all the con­tests found Obama beat her by 20 per­cent­age points among voters young­er than 30.

In Iowa, Sanders routed Clin­ton among young voters even more thor­oughly than Obama did. Gender was no de­fense. Break­downs provided by the CNN polling unit show that among Iowa voters young­er than 30, Sanders not only won 84 per­cent of men, but also 84 per­cent of wo­men. At a rauc­ous Sanders rally at the Uni­versity of Iowa last week­end, young wo­men re­peatedly told me that they con­sidered the so­cial­ist sep­tua­gen­ari­an “the best can­did­ate for our gen­er­a­tion,” as Kath­leen Tromb­ley, a uni­versity ju­ni­or, put it. “I’d rather,” she ad­ded, “vote for someone I fully be­lieve in rather than for someone just based on gender.” Ouch.

Clin­ton can sur­vive that res­ist­ance among young people dur­ing the primar­ies, be­cause she en­joys nearly com­par­able ad­vant­ages among voters older than 45, who cast nearly three-fifths of all Demo­crat­ic bal­lots in 2008. Just as Clin­ton por­trayed some of Obama’s grand plans as “ir­re­spons­ible and frankly naïve,” once again her prin­cip­al ar­gu­ments against Sanders ac­cept and even widen this gen­er­a­tion gap. The case that he is stir­ring un­achiev­able hopes and that she can shoulder more in­cre­ment­al change through the clogged polit­ic­al sys­tem res­on­ates more with older voters who know how of­ten life frus­trates grand plans. Like­wise, Clin­ton’s self-por­tray­al as a fight­er with the scars to prove it speaks more to those car­ry­ing the dis­ap­point­ments of middle age (and bey­ond) than to those whose faces are still un­lined by care.

Clin­ton’s gen­er­a­tion gap would pose a great­er chal­lenge if she wins the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­a­tion. For the first time, the mil­len­ni­al gen­er­a­tion this year will nearly equal baby boomers as a share of eli­gible voters, and Demo­crats need big mar­gins from those young people. Telling them that it’s un­real­ist­ic to ex­pect trans­form­at­ive change is un­likely to in­spire the sup­port—or turnout—that Clin­ton would need to pre­vail in the gen­er­al elec­tion, even if they prefer her to the Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee.

Clin­ton’s prob­lem is that “Demo­crats are be­ing asked to settle and they don’t want to settle,” said Si­mon Rosen­berg, the founder of the Demo­crat­ic think tank NDN. “They want to be in­spired and they want to fight.” In­stead, in her pos­ture to­ward Sanders’s sup­port­ers, es­pe­cially young­er ones, Clin­ton risks po­s­i­tion­ing her­self as the chap­er­one at a frat party. Tenacity and re­si­li­ence are power­ful qual­it­ies in a pres­id­ent. Yet to win not only the nom­in­a­tion but also the gen­er­al elec­tion, Clin­ton will likely have to sell something more up­lift­ing than her ca­pa­city to take a punch.

What We're Following See More »
Gillibrand Announces Exploratory Committee
15 hours ago
Sherrod Brown Also in 2020 Mode
15 hours ago
Report: Trump Told Cohen to Lie to Congress
15 hours ago

"President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter. Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. 'Make it happen,' the sources said Trump told Cohen."

Kamala Harris Announces for President
15 hours ago
Pelosi Rejects Trump's Immigration Offer
2 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.