BY ED CARSON 3/12/15

The furor over Hillary Clinton's private email account while Secretary of State, and her poor handling of the revelations, should be a serious blow for her presidential ambitions. She broke or twisted the rules apparently to hide her communications from the public. More broadly, it revived general concerns about her likability and skill as a campaigner.

Yet Clinton has no serious rivals for the nomination. Credit the Clinton brand and her vast political connections for scaring off significant challengers.

But another big reason is that Democrats lack a deep bench. And Democrats can thank President Obama for that.

The party controlling the White House almost always loses down the ballot, especially for a two-term president, according to Geoffrey Skelley, associate editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball.

But under Obama, Democrats have lost more than 900 state legislative seats, 69 U.S. House seats and 13 U.S. senate seats, all the most since World War II. Democrats also have lost 11 governorships.

Republicans now control 31 governorships. Obama was elected as a sitting senator, but usually governors, former governors or vice presidents win.

"That executive experience has to make you a more attractive option," Skelley said. "Governors have a track record for executive decision-making."

The GOP has governors in several key battleground states, including Florida and the Midwest's Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan. It even has the governor's mansion in deep-blue Illinois and Iowa.

It's not a real surprise that the early GOP front-runners for the 2016 presidential nomination are Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

But it gets worse. Democrats don't just lack a bench. The bench lacks a bench.

The GOP now controls 68 of the country's 98 legislative chambers, excluding Nebraska's officially nonpartisan unicameral legislature. That's a gain of 30 chambers since the end of 2008. Republicans hold the most slate legislative seats since the 1920s.

As a result, the Democrats' pool of potential future governors and U.S. senators is historically low. That suggests that the ranks of attractive Democratic presidential contenders will be thin for years to come, even if the party starts to reverse its down-ticket losses.

Democrats do control most big cities. But no sitting mayor has ever been elected president. Grover Cleveland is the only ex-mayor (Buffalo) to take the White House, and he was governor of New York before becoming president.

Besides, mayors face major fiscal challenges over the coming years that will make it hard to stay popular. With public employee retiree costs soaring, Democratic mayors have to choose between raising taxes, cutting services, or taking on unions. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is in a runoff for re-election in large part because he's butted heads with teachers unions.

So Democrats seeking an ABC candidate (Anybody But Clinton) are left grasping at straws. Their great hope is Elizabeth Warren, a senator for two years, who is probably to the left of the decidedly liberal Massachusetts. And she says she's not running.

Then again, Democrats (and Republicans) don't need a slew of great choices. They just need one every four to eight years.

Democrats obviously don't want Republicans to control the White House and Congress. But a President Clinton would likely exacerbate the party's down-ticket woes, Skelley said.

"For the long-term health of the Democratic party, it might be good for Hillary to lose," he suggested. "A Hillary win could make the health of the Democratic bench even worse."


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-...m#ixzz3UBCfBn4J
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

*************************

So a Hillary win would actually be a loss??? Oh, so we can't lose? Until the next SCJ is nominated. We want the Oval Office! TM