could hillary clinton be the next richard nixon? now that<u+2019>s a provocative question, but it isn<u+2019>t quite what you think.









the other day, i watched hillary and bill clinton take in their close friend terry mcauliffe<u+2019>s inauguration as governor of virginia. neither clinton spoke, but their presence said it all: virginia, the mother of presidents long before it was a modern swing state, will be seeing a lot of the clintons<u+2014>and now they have a ready-made home-away-from-home in the gubernatorial mansion that adorns richmond<u+2019>s capitol square.









every time you observe the clintons, you can<u+2019>t help but ponder the long and winding road of their 40-year electoral saga, beginning with bill<u+2019>s unsuccessful 1974 run for congress in arkansas. their lives are so suffused with politics that it seems incredible to consider that hillary might not run in 2016.









after all, with just one exception, a clinton has always tried for public office whenever a tantalizing opportunity presented itself. the rule-breaker was bill<u+2019>s aborted run for president in the 1988 cycle. on the eve of his expected candidacy announcement in july 1987, with the national press gathering in little rock, his long-suffering chief of staff, betsey wright, she later told pbs, huddled with her boss and presented a list of women he was alleged to have been <u+201c>seeing.<u+201d> after a number of responses along the lines of <u+201c>she<u+2019>ll never talk,<u+201d> clinton belatedly awakened to the reality that he could self-destruct in the post-gary hart world<u+2014>hart had been forced out of the democrats<u+2019> presidency sweepstakes just a couple of months earlier following allegations of adultery. the next day, clinton declined to run, stunning the news media with the unconvincing excuse that he had decided to spend more time with his family.









nearly three decades later, hillary needs no cover story should she surprise us and spurn another white house tour. now in her mid 60s, she knows as much as any human being alive what an arduous journey lies ahead even for a heavily favored contender. inevitably, she will consider how much she wants, or is able, to keep going at a killer pace throughout her 70s and, more important, her chances of prevailing in november 2016.









much of it is out of her hands. low job approval numbers for president obama, should they persist, will make it difficult for any democrat to win, even with the party<u+2019>s seeming electoral college edge and growing demographic advantages among minorities and the young. just ask john mccain how president george w. bush<u+2019>s unpopularity affected his 2008 white house bid. (of course, you can<u+2019>t rule out the very real chance that the republicans will rescue the eventual democratic nominee by putting forward an out-of-the-mainstream nominee.)









the clintons are nothing if not shrewd, and they<u+2019>ve lived through the entire era of postwar american politics. so hillary clinton would be the last to believe what i have heard with increasing frequency: that, in the end, no one of real heft, even vice president joe biden, will challenge her for the democratic nomination she nearly won in 2008, and she will steamroll over the minor contenders who do. most frequently mentioned in the <u+201c>minor<u+201d> category are former gov. brian schweitzer of montana and gov. martin o<u+2019>malley of maryland. (o<u+2019>malley also made a little-noticed appearance at the mcauliffe inauguration.) sen. elizabeth warren of massachusetts would be a major opponent should she run, but she insists she will not. when california gov. jerry brown also bowed out, nbc news<u+2019>s first read called it <u+201c>a reminder that hillary clinton will probably face little to no serious competition if she runs.<u+201d>









possible? sure. but history<u+2019>s guide tells us otherwise. a consensus choice for a major-party presidential nomination is exceedingly rare<u+2014>and this is where the nixon comparison comes in.









incumbent presidents often find their second-term nominations nearly unopposed, though even in this rarefied group, there are notable exceptions: harry truman, lyndon johnson, jimmy carter and george h.w. bush. (truman and johnson withdrew in 1952 and 1968, respectively, partly because of intra-party opposition.)









but when no incumbent was running, the only precedent for a consensus choice in the entire post-world war ii era is richard nixon in 1960. this impressive feat was nonetheless achieved with some difficulty and embarrassment. nixon thought he had averted a serious gop challenge when new york gov. nelson rockefeller withdrew as a potential candidate in december 1959. but nixon<u+2019>s unappealing persona and substantial baggage from the political wars of the 1940s and 1950s worried many republicans eager for a third consecutive white house victory. rockefeller sensed it and reconsidered, toying with a surprise candidacy on the eve of the 1960 republican national convention. at the last instant, rocky relented, mollified by the so-called <u+201c>treaty of fifth avenue,<u+201d> a series of concessions by nixon negotiated in an all-night session and announced by the new york governor himself.
hillary<u+2019>s no slam dunk in 2016
noauthor