Louis Capozzi | The Hawkeye Hurting

Citizen Capozzi |How the Iowa Caucuses revealed (again) that Hillary Clinton is a weak presidential candidate

By Louis Capozzi 02/03/16 11:57pm

The Iowa caucuses, plural did not turn out well for the Democratic Party.

With the Iowa caucuses concluded and New Hampshire quickly transforming into the nation’s obsession, it’s worth pausing to reflect on how actual votes compare to the pundit-driven noise from the previous year.

As early as 2012, pundits told us Hillary Clinton would be the “strongest non-incumbent frontrunner in modern history” and pollsters touted her electoral strength. Then when Bernie Sanders entered the race last fall, the pundits told us he was a “long shot” whose best hope was to make Clinton take more progressive policy positions.

Yet in Iowa, the voters said something different. As television viewers waited deep into the night, CNN was unable to declare a winner until Tuesday. Aided by fortunate coin-flips and establishment super-delegates, Hillary Clinton won Iowa by less than a single percentage point.

Clinton suffered this nail-biter in spite of her huge fundraising advantage, her army of establishment endorsements, the popularity of Bill Clinton and a DNC that has basically rigged the debate process in her favor.

Yes, Clinton is being seriously challenged by Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist — paging perennial candidate Eugene Debs. After blowing her front-runner status to Barack Obama in 2008, Clinton is struggling against a 74-year-old unabashedly irreligious — a difficult electoral stigma to overcome — senator who polled at 3 percent in Iowa less than a year ago. While many justly credit Bernie Sanders for running a spirited campaign and bringing issues to national attention, his success forces us to confront a naked truth.

Hillary Clinton is a terrible presidential candidate. And no, the scariness of some Republican candidates or her gender don’t change that. Recent polling shows that 51 percent of registered voters have a negative opinion of Clinton, which is worse than the favorability rating of any successful presidential candidate since 1980. Even worse, 59 percent of voters think she is dishonest, a staggering sum for an anointed front-runner.

At the same time, Clinton is still under investigation by the FBI for mishandling classified information as Secretary of State and is facing regular questioning from the media. These questions are not the result of some harebrained Republican scheme, but the result of her foolish behavior that a federal judge has already declared to be in violation of government rules.

On the other hand, Clinton supporters cite her success as Secretary of State and ask voters to look past her careless email practices. What successes are they referring to?

I assume they’re not referring to the rise of ISIS, the collapse of order in Libya, the increased nuclear armament of North Korea, the increased Russian aggression in Eastern Europe or the Trans-Pacific Partnership she helped negotiate before she flipped-flopped by opposing the agreement to placate progressive voters.

Finally, Clinton supporters cite her electability and the necessity of keeping the GOP from dismantling President Obama’s legacy. However, in recent polling averages, she loses to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio while barely beating Donald Trump. Interestingly, Bernie Sanders outperforms Clinton against all three Republican front-runners.

What’s the argument for Hillary Clinton’s anointed front-runner status again? For those who somehow maintain faith in Clinton, take comfort. Regardless of any Sanders success in Iowa or New Hampshire, Clinton’s massive institutional advantages and deft ability to adopt increasingly progressive policy positions will eventually help her overcome Sanders.

And then what? Democrats hope they can face a “crazy” candidate — paging Donald Trump or Ted Cruz — that Clinton can run against as the “voice of reason.” Liberals have reason for hope here, as Cruz handily won Iowa while Trump maintains HUUUUUGE polling leads in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and many other states.

But Iowa has actually diminished this hope. In the Hawkeye State, Marco Rubio was undoubtedly the big winner as he exceeded his polling performance and rallied more establishment politicians to his cause. If Rubio wins the Republican nomination, I wouldn’t bet on another Clinton occupying the White House in 2017.

And if the Republicans do win the presidency, they can send flowers to the Democratic Party. Democratic leaders and pundits thought they could anoint Hillary Clinton, but they forgot that the voters have a say. And in Iowa, the voters have spoken.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.