A disadvantage of being a week behind every other commentator in addressing Hillary Clinton’s declaration of ascendancy is in finding something new to say.
The advantage is that I get to appraise what everyone else has said. So we’ll call this a roundup of punditry.
Collectively the outcome is the expectation of the inevitability (overused but it is what it is) of Clinton’s re-entry into the White House — this time as its principal occupant, with the ever-inexplicably-popular former president who would become the nation’s historic first dude.
There are two sources of data that would argue against the certainty of the outcome on Nov. 8, 2016, and I’ll get to them in a minute or two in an effort to talk fellow conservatives off the ledge by providing at least a modicum of hope.
But first we have to stand in awe at the astounding forces that propel Clinton unlike any other person in the country could ever hope to know.
The Clintons have always enjoyed nearly complete immunity from scandal. People just don’t seem to care about their lies, conceit or flouting of rules the rest of us are lawfully bound to follow or risk the consequences of prosecution.
Even this past week we learn that Congress first asked the former secretary of state about private email records more than 21/2 years ago.
“Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business?” asked Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Clinton never responded. Instead, except for what she chose to share, she just summarily erased all her secrets from what was likely the only private email server in widespread use in the entire government.
Then there are those who will vote for her just because she is not a man. It’s the only thing they need to know. Nothing else matters. It’s time for a woman president. End of discussion.
Even if gender is not the motivation nor does scandal matter, Democrats and liberals are going to vote for her because she is one of them.
They may grumble a bit about the utter nonsense of her attempt to connect with ordinary Americans by touring around in a throwback hippie van. Posing as someone who cares about the unfairness of the über-rich (the very same benefactors of her billion-dollar campaign) is just silly.
While it’s not quite the image of someone wanting to be the leader of the free world, she’s theirs nonetheless.
Just maybe, however, it’s not completely settled. The two sources of optimism come from some latest polling and analysis from the country’s most accurate predictor of the outcome of national elections.
The respected Quinnipiac University poll of swing states where the election will likely be decided finds some good news for potential Republican hopefuls. Clinton is running behind or within the margin of error.
The reason, according to Quinnipiac’s findings: “Voters in each state say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy.”
It would seem that those qualities would be priorities for Americans when it comes to choosing our president.
Then we have the guru of predictors whose record of being right tops all the others. Some call him the “wizard” of political calculus.
Nate Silver correctly predicted the outcome of 49 states in the 2008 election and beat every other pundit with a perfect record of correctly calling the results in every state in 2012.
His current take is that it’s a toss-up: “Get ready for an extremely competitive election.”
Just like baseball at this point in the season, hope springs eternal.
Clinton’s perceived inevitability could very well be but a hallucination of the left.
Richard Greene is a former Arlington mayor and served as an appointee of President George W. Bush as regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. email@example.com