Let's be honest. Very few people believed, at the beginning of this campaign season, that Bernie Sanders would be a serious challenger to Hillary Clinton, close enough to be scaring the bejesus out of her campaign with just weeks to go before the first caucus and the first primary.
If anything, some probably believed that Martin O’Malley would have given her a nominal challenge. But Sanders?
I think this speaks to Clinton’s weakness as a candidate. Despite her enormous institutional advantages and name recognition, she is in a dogfight with an avowed Democratic Socialist in the first two states — a guy who has never been high profile or a gifted orator and politician like Obama.
Good on Sanders for sticking to his message and pounding away, slowly and steadily. His message is timely and impactful. If nothing else, he is also exposing Clinton’s weaknesses as a general election candidate. Back at the beginning of this whole thing, kos and many other pundits and posters here were suggesting that she was damn near a lock for the nomination and close to a sure bet for a general election victory. kos confidently predicted that “Sanders' ceiling is 25-30 percent.”
I never believed that, and neither did many others who could assess Clinton’s weaknesses honestly. I don't know how many times I read here and in the press that women would support her overwhelmingly and carry her to victory. That is certainly not being borne out by the numbers coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire (as opposed to relatively meaningless, at this point, national Clinton-Sanders numbers).
In addition, head-to-head numbers against possible GOP challengers show Sanders outpacing Clinton in most cases. (Yeah, yeah, I know, Clinton partisans… “They haven’t even started ripping Sanders apart yet! Hillary is a known quantity! She’s battle-tested! Blah, blah, blah...”)
One sure sign that the Clinton camp thinks they’re in trouble is that they’re trotting out Bill to make the “electability” argument, and Hillary is retweeting some quote from a Sanders supporter who is at least entertaining the possibility of voting for Clinton based on electability.
Really? The Clinton juggernaut is reduced to that? (Besides, I am not convinced that she gives us a better chance in a general election than Sanders, given her upside-down favorability numbers, especially among independents.)
So who knows what happens now? Sanders could pull off wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, at which point we’ll be looking at a flailing Clinton combo reminiscent of 2008. Should that happen, it will be an ugly spectacle. A former president and “sure-thing” front runner aghast at the possibility she may lose. Again. Expect Bill to show up in South Carolina like he did in 2008 and compare the Sanders campaign to Jesse Jackson’s failed1988 presidential effort. The panic will be palpable and the “electability” argument goes up in smoke.
Let’s face it, Clinton could still close this thing out early, but she’s been exposed. She’s a lousy candidate. All of the endorsements and the super PACs and the “listening tours” and control of the levers of power within the party, and she’s still in a dogfight with a little-known Democratic Socialist who has been giving the same speech for 30+ years (albeit, a timely speech, given the ever-rising income chasm).
The Emperor has no clothes.