A Red Cell-like Assessment of a Hillary Clinton Exit from the 2016 Presidential Contest

(Note: "Red Cells" are teams in organizations whose mission is to look at disruptions, alternative outcomes or the consequences of possible courses of action)

What a Hillary Clinton Departure Might Look Like - the View from August 2016

Secretary Clinton’s failure to obtain the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination marks not only the demise of a life-long career in politics but also the end of a political era during which the Clinton husband and wife team rose to international prominence.  It also confirms the re-ascendency of the Northeastern segment of the Democratic Party – a faction once characterized by some as the “Kennedy Wing.” With the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy, the leadership of that faction passed into the hands of President Barack Obama.  Under his leadership, policy was determined by a new generation exhibiting an emphasis on a more liberal and urban ideological bent.

The 2016 primary season is unique in modern political history.  Both parties entered the home stretch to their respective conventions with presumptive nominees saddled with a host of major liabilities.  Both were viewed by significant portions of the electorate as untrustworthy, unlikable and were perceived as philosophically unable to address the problems expected to confront the nation, both from within and without, during the next four years.  Both were seen as products of the most extreme elements within their respective parties – each with limited appeal to the political mainstream.

As the Conventions drew near, there was a significant change in the tone of the contest.  On the GOP side, Donald Trump was able to vanquish his competitors and, despite all expectations to the contrary, the Republicans started to coalesce behind him as their candidate.  This process continued through the Cleveland convention and, despite “Occupy-like” efforts across the city during the event, the convention itself proceeded in relatively good order.

The unexpected cohesion exhibited by the Republicans and the magnitude of their associated post-Convention favorable "bump" in the polls struck the Democrats like a thunderclap.  Most alarming were stirrings among women and Latinos which hinted at a nascent warming towards a possible Trump presidency.  Even before the last Republican delegates headed home from Cleveland, the winds of change were reaching gale-force within the Democratic leadership.

The “reset” - as the Democratic leadership and some media commentators termed it (ironically taking a term Ms. Clinton had employed herself as Secretary of State) - which heralded the demise of Hillary’s political aspirations was precipitated by a chain of events which culminated in a Convention-eve "flight of the superdelegates."

The earliest murmurings of change became evident in the aftermath of Hillary’s debacle coming out of the California primary and rose to a veritable crescendo during the week-long interim between the conclusion of the Republican Convention and the opening gavel of the Democratic proceedings.  Hillary’s email woes reached a tipping point as a continuing stream of disclosures from the State Department undermined the Clinton campaign’s damage control efforts.  Compounding her problems, “leaks” began to circulate widely in the media hinting that the Justice Department had received a final report from the FBI - one which indicated that an indictment was indeed in the offing.

In addition to the email issues, the Clintons’ scandal plagued past was seen as a growing problem – one which effectively nullified the efforts of Democratic Party strategists to exploit perceived liabilities in Donald Trump’s past.  The issue became a major topic of conversation on CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

As these subjects took center stage, the way in which they dominated the tone and tenor of the discussions across “DNC-friendly” media outlets led many commentators to voice suspicions that some moves showed what one pundit labeled as an “intelligent design” – possibly emanating from the White House itself.

Among Democrats there was a palpable, growing fear that the worst was yet to come as Sen. Bernie Sanders’ threats of a disrupted convention suddenly took on a new significance.

To add to Democrats' woes, numerous polls confirmed the reality of the Republicans’ post-Convention “bump” in favorable ratings and showed a growing lead on the part of Donald Trump in the impending Trump/Clinton general election match-up. 

Superdelegates began to cloister and there were rumors (as yet unconfirmed) that Sen. Sanders himself was a party in some of these discussions.  There was speculation that an intensive effort was underway to placate Sanders and his supporters in order to head off their promised disruptions on the Convention floor.   Insiders began to speak, anonymously, of concessions to Sanders.  Backroom deals in old-style “smoke-filled-rooms” were the talk of the Sunday morning news shows on July 24.

In fact, days before the start of the Convention, Democratic Congressional leaders and a significant number of the superdelegates had apparently already decided on a “nuclear option” which afforded an opportunity to shed, in one fell swoop, the Clinton "baggage" and its increasingly worrisome polling. The first indication (probably a result of the discussions with Sen. Sanders) was the resignation of Party Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on the Sunday evening before the official start of the Philadelphia Convention.  Several other Clinton partisans in Party and Convention leadership posts also departed.  Conservative media outlets were quick to categorize the departures as a "purge."

Clinton’s freedom of movement was being constrained well before the opening gavel.  News reports citing anonymous sources circulated widely claiming that President Obama would have veto authority over who would hold the second spot on the Democratic ticket.  Despite denials from many in DNC leadership, Trump’s acceptance of a well-known “establishment Republican” on his ticket at the recently concluded Cleveland Convention only lent more credence to these reports.

Hillary’s support began to visibly crumble from that point on.  Once the Convention was underway, most of the superdelegates sat out the first ballot.  As a result, neither she nor Sen Sanders were able to garner the necessary votes to clinch the nomination. The Clinton strategists working the floor reported that the support of previously committed delegates could no longer be guaranteed in any subsequent balloting.  There were several vocal floor demonstrations on the part of Clinton loyalists but agitators were ejected from the hall with their places taken by alternate delegates.

In addition to the sporadic demonstrations, even before the end of the process for the first ballot, whole state delegations were entertaining a range of “dark horse” and “favorite son” candidates.  To many observers, the Convention seemed on the verge of anarchy even in the absence of any efforts on the part Sanders’ supporters.

In light of the first ballot results and the tenor on the Convention floor, the Clinton camp concluded that their support would likely erode even further during the next round of balloting and her name was not even placed in nomination for a second ballot.   Hillary’s abrupt exit left the appearance of a momentary vacuum.  There was a flicker of hope on the part of some rank and file Sanders’ supporters that their time had come.  This hope was short lived. 

Before anyone could grasp the magnitude of what had occurred, the Clintons were no longer a force in national politics.  By all indications, Hillary and her inner circle left Philadelphia for an “undisclosed location” well before the second ballot had commenced.  To describe their departure from the Convention scene as “anticlimactic” would be an understatement.  Some commentators compared the exit to the break-up of the Soviet Union.

Amid a plethora of “favorite son” nominations from the floor of the Philadelphia Convention, superdelegates acted quickly to engineer a ballot consisting of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker.  Sanders himself put Warren’s name in nomination and pledged his support.  Within the state delegations there was considerable, organized maneuvering to shore up support for the proposed Warren-Booker ticket.  There was much talk from the podium of a need for unity in the face of the now very realistic Trump "threat."  On the second ballot, the ticket passed by an overwhelming margin.  

The new ticket faces a considerable challenge in developing nationwide name recognition and enunciating a coherent policy.  Their platform centers on a continuation of the Obama domestic and foreign policy programs augmented with elements of Sanders’ positions for regulation of business and expanded programs aimed specifically to appeal to millennials.  Electoral success hinges on how well the foundations of the "Organizing for America" effort utilized in previous elections can be energized and brought to bear.  By and large, the Sanders supporters appear to be on board.  It remains to be seen exactly what role former Clinton supporters still in leadership positions in the various local and state Party establishments across the country will play.

Despite its perceived hurtles, the “clean slate” represented by the new Democratic ticket poses a considerable challenge to the Republicans.  All discussions of emails, past sex scandals, Benghazi, investigations and indictments - topics which had dominated the political airwaves for the better part of almost three years - vanished overnight.  There was a very real sigh of relief among Democrats that a true "reset" had been achieved.  The burden is on the Republicans as to how well they can pivot to address the new reality. 

The fundamental disruption left by the departure of Clinton also left the national news media in something of a predicament.  Like the Republicans, they, too, were forced to adjust to a new political reality and had to start literally from “square one.”

Polling in the wake of the 2016 Democratic Convention reflected a positive and significant “bump” in approval ratings for the Warren-Booker ticket.  Pundits predicted that, even given the apparent effusive and energetic support coming out of the Obama White House for the new ticket, this “bump” might prove short-lived if the Democrats are unable to communicate a coherent platform which can garner support among the mainstream electorate.  It remains to be seen if the new Democratic ticket can fully exploit the disruption it has wrought to its own advantage.