Emily Bell, who runs the Tow Centre for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, tweeted out this simple but provocative question a few days ago: “What are the odds on Hillary not running?”

I replied that it was about 10 per cent. Others, such as Politico’s Ben White, said it was more like 0.1 per cent. The question, and the back and forth over it, got me thinking about what would happen in the unlikely event that Hillary Rodham Clinton decided not to run. After all, she has only hinted at her interest publicly and has yet to take the steps — leadership PAC, etc. — that would indicate clear interest. Virtually everything we know about Clinton’s plans come from staff movements and quotes to reporters from “those in the know” who demand anonymity to share their knowledge.

I wrote about this possibility about a year ago and concluded that if Hillary stayed out, the result would be a crowded field with Vice-President Joe Biden as a nominal front-runner. Republicans’ chances of winning the White House also would immediately improve.

There’s a different dynamic at work now, particularly if Clinton waits a few more months to make clear exactly what she is going to do in 2016. We are rapidly approaching the point of no return for her and Democrats. That is, if she were suddenly to decide not to run, say, in two months’ time, there would be an overwhelming sense of doom within the party. The shock would reverberate for weeks, or maybe much longer, making it hard for anyone looking to fill the void she left behind.

Wild scramble

Now, that doom would eventually be followed by a wild scramble among the Bidens, Martin O’Malleys and, yes, even Elizabeth Warrens of the party for the donors, activists and staffers who had been assumed to be part of the Clinton machine. But doing things in a hurry with what would be regarded widely as Democrats’ ‘B’ or even ‘C’ team would be deeply problematic.

Simply put, for Clinton to pass on the race — and especially if she waits until the summer to make her decision public — would be absolutely disastrous for her party’s chances of holding on to the White House in 2016. She and her budding team have to know that, and it’s hard for me to imagine that she would have let things go this far — there is an entire campaign and outside Clinton world in place for her — if she had any serious or lingering doubts about whether she was going to make the race.

And, as has been true since Day One, she is a heavy favourite to become the Democratic nominee. One data point to back that up: In a new Des Moines Register-Bloomberg poll, Clinton stood at 56 per cent in a hypothetical Iowa caucus matchup, with 16 per cent for Warren, the Massachusetts senator, and 9 per cent for Biden.

Here, we’ve ranked Clinton and the six other people who either will or could conceivably run for president against her.

7. Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent from Vermont: Sanders appears to be serious about running, which is why he’s on this list. Although he will probably get real support from more liberal quarters of the party, his appeal is limited. Still, he’ll mix it up, and in an interview with The Washington Post this week, he questioned whether Clinton would be “bold” enough as president.

6. Former Virginia senator Jim Webb: As CNN’s Dan Merica pointed out recently, Webb is running his campaign — he has formed an exploratory committee — largely via Twitter. Given that Webb has fewer than 5,000 Twitter followers, this may not be the most sound political strategy.

5. California Governor Jerry Brown: Bear with us for a second here. Brown is governor of a notoriously difficult state to run, he has run for president before, and he’s not exactly friendly with the Clintons. And, he’s super popular. He’s also 76 (even though he doesn’t look or act like it), and there’s little indication he’s seriously looking at running. But if he did ...

4. Vice-President Joe Biden: The vice-president assured us recently that he is serious about running for president in 2016 — probably because folks like us are increasingly dubious and because he hasn’t done much of the legwork to put a team in place. Even if he did run, we still have a hard time seeing him catch fire. He’s entertaining, yes, but “entertaining” ain’t “presidential.”

3. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley. If there’s anybody who can conceivably beat Clinton by running to her left — and might actually run — it’s O’Malley. He’s got lots of liberal bona fides from his time as Maryland governor, and he checks lots of other boxes — even though he didn’t really leave office on a high note. But we would stress this is all on paper, and O’Malley would still face very tough odds.

2. Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren. The drumbeat for Warren to reconsider her past refusals to consider running in 2016 has died down a bit in recent weeks. That said, Warren backers commissioned a poll released on Friday that showed significant unhappiness with Clinton among Democratic voters. Warren has the liberal profile and fundraising ability to be a serious problem for Clinton if she decided she wanted to be.

1. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. The former secretary of state is the biggest, non-incumbent favourite for a presidential nomination since at least World War II.

— Washington Post

 

Credit: Washington Post staff writer Aaron Blake contributed to this report.