Hillary Clinton leads in Iowa poll: Why 2016 won't be 2008 for Hillary

A survey released Thursday shows that the former secretary of State overwhelmingly leads likely Iowa voters, signaling a vast improvement over her caucus performance in 2008.

Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP
Hillary Rodham Clinton smiles during a keynote address at the Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women, Tuesday, in Santa Clara, Calif.

If the polls are correct, history will not repeat itself. At least not in Iowa, where Hillary Clinton has an overwhelming early lead of likely Iowa Democratic caucus participants, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

A year ahead of Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses, some 61 percent of likely Iowa Democratic caucus voters said they would choose the former secretary of State – that's a far cry from 2008 when Clinton took a disappointing third place in the Iowa caucuses (thanks to then-unknown upstart Barack Obama), a low point from which her campaign never quite recovered.

The political arithmetic this time around couldn't be more different.

“The Democratic race in the Iowa Caucuses a year before the voting can be summarized pretty succinctly: Hillary Clinton is the huge favorite,” Quinnipiac University Poll Assistant Director Peter A. Brown said. “If she chooses not to run, US Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Vice President Joseph Biden are likely to begin at the top of a pack with other candidates scrambling to get into the race.”

Whether Clinton runs makes all the difference. If she runs, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts got 19 percent and Vice President Joe. Biden got 7 percent, the poll finds. No other candidate tops 5 percent.

If Clinton decides not to run, Warren is the choice of 36 percent and Biden 32 percent. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont gets 8 percent with 17 percent undecided. But even Warren's narrow lead is nowhere close to Clinton's 61 percent.

So what's changed? Why are the (Democratic) heavens smiling down on Hillary now?

The biggest reason has less to do with Hillary than it does with the other candidates – this is one of the smallest, quietest Democratic presidential fields in recent history. Even Quinnipiac, it appears, was struggling to find candidates to include in its poll. Warren has famously insisted, in both present and future tenses, that she is not running for president. Biden, who's already run for president twice (2008 and 1988) doesn't really stand a chance. And Bernie Sanders, who's been called "A Ross Perot of the left," has even less of a chance.

That leaves Iowa caucus voters with...Hillary.

So what's changed is that Clinton appears to be the inevitable choice for 2016. Clinton is the most dominant non-incumbent ever – and for that matter, perhaps the most dominant non-candidate ever.

That's not to say Clinton herself hasn't changed since 2008. She's now perceived as an accomplished secretary of State, and she (and her campaign) have learned from her 2008 mistakes and have bolstered her image.

That's why Iowa likely Democratic Caucus participants give Clinton a whopping 90 percent favorability rating. In fact, voters like Hillary so much these days, the dynasty thing doesn't even bother them: According to the poll, 5 percent of caucus-goers are less likely to vote for Clinton because her husband was president, while 29 percent are more likely and 65 percent say it will make no difference.

In other words, in politics, 2008 is ancient history.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.