The Hillary inevitability bandwagon seems to be headed for the ditch. The bat-guano anti-American left as personified by MoveOn.org has decided that Elizabeth Warren is the best candidate as she would create synergy by being the first woman, Native American, and privileged, sinecured law professor to run for president:
The liberal group is poised to spend $1 million on a campaign to draft [mc_name name=’Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’W000817′ ], the Massachusetts Democrat, into the 2016 presidential race, an indication of an appetite among some activists for a more progressive alternative toHillary Rodham Clinton.
MoveOn.org’s executive director, Ilya Sheyman, said the group planned to open offices and hire staff in Iowa and New Hampshire, the states that kick off the presidential nominating process, and ultimately to air television ads in those states. The group will begin its push with a website, “Run Warren Run,” allowing supporters to sign a petition urging Ms. Warren to pursue a White House bid and featuring a video about her.
“We want to demonstrate to [mc_name name=’Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’W000817′ ] that there’s a groundswell of grass-roots energy nationally and in key states and to demonstrate there’s a path for her,” Mr. Sheyman said. He added that the effort was not being made in coordination with Ms. Warren and that the group advised her staff about it only last weekend.
This comes in the midst of a storm of polls that point to her as a virtual lock for the presidency. In a season that has been characterized by utterly craptacular polling, Bloomberg is pushing, so to speak, a poll that it questionable on two fronts. First, the strength of a Hillary candidacy and second, the strength of at least one GOP candidate. Via The Hill:
No Republican presidential contender is within 5 percentage points of Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, according to a poll released Monday by Bloomberg.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush trails Clinton by 6 percentage points in a head-to-head matchup, as do Gov. Chris Christie (N.J.) and 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney (Mass.). Clinton has an 8-point lead on [mc_name name=’Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’P000603′ ] (Ky.), and a 13-point advantage on [mc_name name=’Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’C001098′ ] (Texas) in the poll.
Clinton is boosted in the poll by a deep well of public respect for her resume.
An overwhelming majority, 78 percent, say it’s an advantage that Clinton has lived in Washington and worked in the federal government, while 77 percent say it’s an advantage that she served as secretary of State.
In addition, 67 percent said they viewed it as an advantage that she’s married to former President Bill Clinton; 60 percent said it’s good that she’s run for president before; 59 percent say it’s a positive that she served in the Obama administration; and 52 percent admire her close ties to Wall Street.
These figures contribute to giving Clinton the best favorability rating in the field by far.
Fifty-two percent said they have a positive view of Clinton, against 42 percent negative.
You can hit the link to the poll, but it is pretty sketchy in a couple of ways. First, the poll was conducted using an Iowa polling firm, Selzer & Company. I don’t have any professional opinion of this company but it predicted Jodi Ernst would win by 1 point. As a rule, I’m a “by their fruits you shall know them” kind of guy. This was a poll on their home turf. What makes anyone think they are in touch with the pulse of the nation any more than they are with the pulse of Iowa.
Here are the top line findings:
Think about this for a moment… Joe Biden has a higher favorable rating than any GOP candidate on the list.
The second strange thing about this poll is Hillary’s advantages:
I don’t know what sample of the population they polled to get those numbers, the best I can come up with is Plutocrats-я-Us. In which party do you find large majorities thinking close ties to Wall Street and working in the federal government are positives. How does being in an utterly Gothic marriage with a man who never won a majority of voters make for a good thing in a president? And 77% think her tenure as Secretary of State is positive? This is simply crap of the worst kind. But it is the crap that is strangely reminiscent of an earlier time when another inevitable Hillary bandwagon pulled out from the station. This from 2005:
Clinton has been leading the field of Democratic presidential contenders for the 2008 election, still more than three years away. She is running for a second Senate term next year and has dodged questions about whether she’ll make a White House bid.
In the poll, 29% were “very likely” to vote for Clinton for president if she runs in 2008; 24% were “somewhat likely.” Seven percent were “not very likely” and 39% were “not at all likely” to vote for her.
The other interesting feature is the standing of Mitt Romney. He scores a higher favorable rating than any other Republican and he does the better in the head-to-head match-ups than anyone else and he does so by more than 10 points in most cases.
In fact, Romney’s closest competitor is Jeb Bush.
In short, this poll is nonsense. Hillary’s core problem remains today, as it was in 2008, that it is difficult to define exactly who her base of support is. The Democrat base, more likely than not, will heed the call of MoveOn and support Warren or similar candidate from the left. This will leave Hillary in a position similar to that she held in 2008 but weaker. She will be associated with the Obama administration’s foreign policy. Benghazi will not go away. And she will be the same age as Ronald Reagan when he was elected. And her only backers will be the editorial boards of a handful of left wing newspapers and perhaps the twits at the US Chamber of Commerce.