Bill Scher is the senior writer at the Campaign for America’s Future, and co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show “The DMZ” along with the Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis.

Until now, Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency has been viewed as pretty much a sure thing. But lately the road to near-certain nomination has taken a couple of rough turns, especially with the revelation that Clinton may have broken federal rules as secretary of state by communicating only on her private email account. Which makes us wonder: What if The Unthinkable did happen and she actually dropped out? What would be the Democrats’ response?

“Panic,” says Democratic consultant Chris Lapetina. Indeed, the biggest problem is that the Democratic establishment is apparently so terrified of the idea of a Hillary-less race—and the vicious primary that might result—it’s not even considering contingency plans. Political professionals, like military generals and crisis management experts, know that the way to avoid being blindsided is to prepare for every scenario. But while the Democratic National Committee has to officially remain neutral, much of the extraparty infrastructure has been moving ahead on the presumption of a Hillary campaign.


Priorities USA Action has brought together Obama and Clinton campaign veterans to share the latest innovations in micro-targeting techniques (and, perhaps raise $500 million). American Bridge 21st Century’s Correct The Record project already offers a steady stream of talking points helping Hillary defenders parry the latest attacks. EMILY’s List, the PAC dedicated to raising money on behalf of Democratic women, plans to shift into overdrive with Hillary at the top of the ticket.

When they were asked what they would do with their resources if Hillary takes a pass—line up behind another primary candidate to help clear the field, or stay on the sidelines until the general election—very few of the establishment party operatives I contacted would entertain the question, even off the record.

This Hillary-or-bust attitude bespeaks a certain complacency: Democrats have been getting a little too used to “being the organized party” for once and rallying around a single candidate, while Republicans struggle with an unwieldy double-digit field. So it makes sense for someone to entertain what would happen if disaster struck. It might as well be me.

***

Last June, conservative columnist Ross Douthat suggested that Obama presides over an “Austro-Hungarian empire of presidential majorities: a sprawling, ramshackle and heterogeneous arrangement, one major crisis away from dissolution.” Hillary Clinton is the party’s “Franz Josef,” the dual monarchist who kept the empire together until his death and the Great War. “Without her,” warned Douthat, “the deluge.”

If true, Democrats would face a debacle after a Hillary bow-out, no matter whom the Republicans nominate. With only a single unifying figure, without a united philosophy, strategy and agenda, it’s very difficult to govern, much less get elected.

If Douthat is right, and Hillary’s rock-star status is masking deep divisions within her party, then who would donors flock to? As of now, says Lapetina, “there really isn’t any enthusiasm” for the non-Hillary Democrats already flirting with a run—Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb—meaning no one would instantly lay claim to the Clintons’ vast network of donors.

Still, the Democratic bench is hardly shallow. Among other possible candidates who might suddenly find a fire in their belly: Gov. Andrew Cuomo, former Gov. Deval Patrick, former Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Sens. Sanders, Mark Warner and Kirsten Gillibrand. Lapetina believes pressure would build for a few really big names to enter, such as Al Gore.

And then there’s Elizabeth.

If the Democratic establishment doesn’t have a contingency plan drawn up, progressive activists certainly do, and it amounts to the drafting of the reluctant Elizabeth Warren. Would a Warren candidacy spark a pitched battle between the populists and centrists in the party? Not necessarily. MoveOn.org Executive Director Ilya Sheyman, one of the leaders of the Draft Warren movement, believes that rather than “all-out war,” the party would see just a “vigorous, contested primary,” with Warren in the catbird seat. And many big Democratic donors are ideological true believers who would give to Warren in a heartbeat.

But the Massachusetts senator could easily lose the nomination even in a Hillary-free race—even with the rising populist fervor in the party. A Warren nomination would require breaking the implicit compact Democrats have long forged between their progressive base and their corporate donors. Over the past two Democratic presidencies the philosophy of centrism—the interwoven narratives of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama—has reigned supreme.

Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy but also pushed through financial deregulation. Obama satisfied the progressive demand for universal health care by bargaining with the insurance and drug lobbies. Both sought to move the country leftward on social issues while championing international trade agreements. Both campaigned on “hope” and “change,” but tempered with flashes of pragmatism. The mix goes down relatively easy with both establishment donors and base voters who want to win.

Warren’s uncompromising nature clashes with the intrinsic pragmatism of the establishment. She increasingly stakes out turf outside what’s considered reasonable inside the Beltway, such as increasing Social Security benefits and restoring the Glass-Steagall firewall that used to separate traditional banking from risky investment banking. These stances poll well, as her supporters rightly note, but they would also face withering assault on the presidential stage and risk drawing attention away from other Democratic priorities.

Beyond that, the Clinton donor network is vast and even more corporate than that of Obama (who himself was no purist when it came to fundraising); as a result, Warren would not be able to lay claim to a large portion of it. That could hurt her among Democratic voters who—never mind Citizens United—put winning first and want to know their candidates can compete.

“Who’s matching up against the Koch brothers?” asks Lapetina. “Who can win the independent expenditure race? … [Warren] has yet to prove that she can win an election against a united Republican Party backed by more than a billion dollars.” (MoveOn’s Sheyman waves off such concerns: “She raised $42 million against Scott Brown. … She raises money for candidates across the country. There’s no doubt she would be able to compete.”)

There’s also the not-so-small matter of whether Warren would run even if Hillary didn’t. The senator has made no move to form an organization, solicit donors or even broaden her issue areas, and she is growing increasingly Shermanesque in her denials of any interest in the office. When I asked if Warren would jump in following a Hillary withdrawal, her spokeswoman Lacey Rose responded, “As Senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president.”

So while we’d see a massive progressive outpouring for Warren, other candidates would likely jump in well before her. Jeb Bush this year has shown the power of first-mover advantage, while last cycle, Rick Perry exemplified the risks of the overhyped, super-scrutinized late entrance.

In the end, the nomination would probably devolve to the most persuasive and Hillary-like of the non-Hillarys, someone adept at co-opting the best of the Warren rhetoric while also calming the nerves of the Democratic donor base. The old joke from Will Rogers—“I am not a member of any organized political party, I am a Democrat”—hasn’t really applied in recent years. Fences were mended in 2008. Party unity helped muscle through a great deal of Obama’s agenda. The midterm defeat in 2010 did not lead to a circular firing squad in 2012. If anything, party unity was arguably a little too tight in 2014.

Democrats have stuck together not because everyone agrees on everything. Nor is it a matter of charismatic personalities—if it was, Obama loyalists and Clinton loyalists would have had a much harder time reconciling. What Democrats have, and Republicans lack, is a higher tolerance for differences of opinion and a greater willingness to compromise.

Contrast the relatively muted reaction in the Democratic Party to last week’s provocative White House video pitching the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership as “the most progressive trade agreement the world has ever seen” with the drubbing Sen. Marco Rubio received from the right after saying that Congress should fund the Department of Homeland Security despite the immigration impasse. Progressives will still strenuously fight the president on trade, but they won’t make it personal, and they won’t abandon him on everything else. Rubio was once seen as the GOP’s savior; now he’s a second-tier presidential candidate because of a few flashes of pragmatism on one issue.

In the shock scenario where Hillary bows out, the Democratic establishment would be initially stunned and directionless. Progressive insurgents would hit the ground running but betting on an uncertain horse. A wild race with tons of drama would likely follow. Neither Barack Obama nor the Clintons nor any party elder could dictate the outcome. It would look like chaos, at first. But the empire would not disintegrate. Today’s Democratic Party is too organized for that, even without its likely standard-bearer, Hillary Clinton.