Clinton/Obama, Moderate/Liberal

It's been my view that Hillary Clinton is a politician whose public image is more liberal than the reality, whereas Barak Obama is more liberal than his image and that this is a good reason to favor Obama. GFR characterizes this as a "developing myth" citing yomder Washington Post article:

Among Democrats, Clinton leads the field with 39 percent, followed by Obama at 17 percent, Edwards at 12 percent, former vice president Al Gore at 10 percent and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the party's 2004 nominee, at 7 percent. No other Democrat received more than 2 percent.

When those surveyed were asked their second choice, Clinton's advantage became even more evident. She is the first or second choice of 60 percent of those surveyed, with Obama second at 33 percent.

Clinton receives significantly higher support among women than men (49 percent to 29 percent) and is favored by more moderates than liberals. Obama has almost equal support among men and women but has twice as much support among liberals as among moderates.

I'm not actually sure what this proves. The poll is measuring Clinton's support among moderates relative to her support from liberals and, again, Obama's support among moderates relative to his support among liberals. What's more, it's measuring their support in a race against each other for the Democratic nomination. The relevant question, however, is which candidate is likely to do better among moderate voters in a general election and the poll didn't ask that question. The full poll does give nationwide approve/disapprove numbers with no ideological breakdowns. Clinton is 56/40 approve/disapprove which is a lot better than where I would have guessed. Obama is 44/23 which I'd say is better (a 1.4:1 approve:disapprove ratio is worse than a 1.93:1 ratio) but certainly both are well-enough liked at this point that you could see either winning an election.

Other polling note is that Nancy Pelosi is pretty well-liked at 43/33. That's not great, but it's way better than Bush at 36/62 so there's absolutely no reason Democrats should feel some need to distance themselves from her, worry that the GOP can succeed by running against Pelosi, or think that Pelosi herself should avoid from feisty give-and-take with the president.

Comments

B-A-R-A-C-K

Posted by right | December 15, 2006 12:13 PM

Nyhan makes a compelling-to-me argument that unfavorables never really go away, they only hide, and that HRC has such high (and rooted) unfavorables that the Republicans will have to run GWB again for HRC to win.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 15, 2006 12:21 PM

"Clinton is 56/40 approve/disapprove which is a lot better than where I would have guessed."

If it were any worse, she wouldn't be running.

Posted by Petey | December 15, 2006 12:26 PM

"HRC has such high (and rooted) unfavorables that the Republicans will have to run GWB again for HRC to win."

Or the Republicans could run John Kerry against her instead. Bush had really lousy numbers through most of 2004, but running against Kerry managed to save the day for him.

Posted by Petey | December 15, 2006 12:40 PM

Personally, I like my guy because he's got a better offense than HRC and a better defense than Obama. But I understand full well that all the lazy punditry for the next 9 months will be focused on the Obama/HRC story.

Probably true, I, too, worry about Obama's defense.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | December 15, 2006 12:42 PM

don't think HRC can beat McCain in a neutral year, but most elections don't take place in neutral years.

I'm not sweating McCain. His candidacy is killable on the age issue alone, which has the virtues of being seemingly non-partisan and of being applicable to future-McCain rather if not present-McCain. If the various Dem groups have any sense, they're funding papers on Alzheimer's in politicians like Reagan and (possibly) Thurmond. In any case, I can't see him getting the nomination. (But see Dole, I guess.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 15, 2006 12:58 PM

If Bush goes along with McCain's insane plan to add 20-30,000 troops to Iraq McCain is toast

Posted by eric | December 15, 2006 1:20 PM

Probably true, I, too, worry about Obama's defense.

As long as he drafts a stout middle linebacker and a shifty corner in '07, he should be fine.

Posted by Chuchundra | December 15, 2006 1:28 PM

At 6'2" and only 165 lbs., I think you take him down to the blocks and abuse him.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 15, 2006 1:32 PM

The relevant question isn’t which politician is personally more liberal. It’s who will be able to move both policy and public opinion in a more in a liberal direction. Obama has the most potential in this respect… with him, it’s not really about offense or defense. It’s all about the upside.

Posted by RC | December 15, 2006 1:41 PM

I like what I've seen of Obama but the truth is no one has the slightest idea of what he really believes on the key issues that define whether you are a liberal or dlc democrat. A two year voting record during which you were aware of the need to position yourself does not count. A speech on Iraq without having the pressure of a vote does not really say much either. The reason why many people think obama is moderate is because most liberals are fairly intolerant of conservatives (or at least conservative ideas) and obama clearly is not. whether that means much, i don't know.

Posted by pt | December 15, 2006 2:12 PM

I like what I've seen of Obama but the truth is no one has the slightest idea of what he really believes on the key issues that define whether you are a liberal or dlc democrat.

You do know that he was a politician before he got to Washington, right? I know...not for that long, but he still has a voting record.

He has a liberal voting record ever since he was elected to office in Illinois.

Posted by dave | December 15, 2006 2:44 PM

So what your telling us is that Obama's reputation is that he's more liberal than his reputation?

My head hurts . . .

Posted by rea | December 15, 2006 2:53 PM

> He has a liberal voting record ever since he
> was elected to office in Illinois.

The problem is, as has been demonstrated by most Democratic candidates since Dukakis, if a candidate is not willing to stand up and say loud tall and proud "I am a liberal" then the Radical candidate will skewer him for having no core. And perhaps rightly so.

I get the impression that when asked "are you a liberal?" Obama will temporize. Because he isn't. And will be destroyed.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | December 15, 2006 3:01 PM

The relevant question, however, is which candidate is likely to do better among moderate voters in a general election and the poll didn't ask that question

The personal prognostications of a non-expert based on personal anecdotals, reading polls and blogs and stuff like woman's intuition:

Many moderates already have bought into that Hillary is a moderate, but they may have other issues about voting for her.

If they don't know it yet, many moderates will learn over time that Obama is more liberal than presenting now, unless he makes the effort to create numerous Sister Souljah moments. This is a problem because many moderates are ready to vote for a moderate or right of center black but they will not vote for a traditionally liberal black. Many moderates dislike the Congressional Black Caucus culture because it brings back the old socialistic welfare state dependency thing for them. They would vote for Bill Cosby for president, but not Maxime Waters. Yes, one can argue that it is "racist" that they prefer "oreo" blacks, but one can also argue that they think that Afro-Americans should become non-hyphenated Americans, i.e., assimilate a bit more.

So if Obama stresses that his color is black, and that he therefore understands what people of color have to deal with, but that his background/youth is actually not Afro-American culture, it will probably play quite well with many moderates. And they would easily toss Hillary over in preference because of all the other issues about her.

Posted by artappraiser | December 15, 2006 3:27 PM

I'm not convinced the approve/disapprove number means a thing when we are talking about Hillary. I totally approve of her and hope she has a long productive career in the Senate, but I don't want her to be President. I believe she'd make a fine President, and I still don't want her to be President. I really, really, really have a problem with this whole legacy Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton thing. Even if she changed her name back to Rodham.

Posted by mw | December 15, 2006 3:37 PM

"Clinton is 56/40 approve/disapprove which is a lot better than where I would have guessed. Obama is 44/23 which I'd say is better (a 1.4:1 approve:disapprove ratio is worse than a 1.93:1 ratio) but certainly both are well-enough liked at this point that you could see either winning an election."

This is a meaningless comparison.

Hillary Clinton has been investigated by dozens of congressional committees, 3 republican independent counsels, has had exposes written about her in all the major publications, has been demonized 24/7 on talk radio and cable TV for almost a decade.

Barack Obama, so far, has had fawning coverage from the MSM and no demonization from talk radio, cable TV. He has not been the subject of any investigations or investigative reporting.

A better comparison would be between Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, both of whom are well known, both of whom have been investigated, demonized and talked about endlessly,

Posted by Nan | December 15, 2006 5:13 PM

"That caveat aside, I do think Obama would have a better general election offense than HRC."

How can you be so sure?

Obama is a blank slate. He is new to national politics. He has had almost no scrutiny. He has not been tested under fire. He has not been subject to smear campaigns and 24/7 demonization on talk radio and cable TV. So far he has had fawning press coverage. That will change and when it does I am not sure he is ready to deal with the attacks.

Posted by Nan | December 15, 2006 5:19 PM

"Fawning press coverage" isn't a bad thing to have on your side, esp. if the alternative is the Kool Kidz Klub candy-coated malice. So far, I've seen no signs that the national press is capable of anything outside those two extremes, so I'll take the fawning, thanks.

I think it's silly to say Obama has no experience and then to say, when his actual career is mentioned, that the experience he has is meaningless. (Illinois politics aren't exactly minor league.) I'm aware that he has no national political experience. But I weigh that against the corroding effects of being in the Senate too long. If he waits until 2012, he'd be running against, please God, a Democratic incumbent. If he waits until 2016, he might have lost his edge, subsumed by Senatorial clubbiness. That pretty much leaves 2008, if he's serious and seriously ambitious.

Also, just because he hasn't yet been demonized by the Right on a national basis, doesn't mean he hasn't been demonized. With his background, I doubt his political life has been one of unblemished sweetness and light. The Illinois GOP had to go out and beg and bribe until it found someone willing to run against him for the Senate - why? Why couldn't they find someone a bit closer to home? Why did they have to settle for a clown like Keyes? Is it because the Illinois GOP is incapable of playing hardball? Or is it because Obama didn't give them anything to play hardball against?

Yes, the Right will make shit up if it can't find anything in his background. It's going to do that regardless. We all know that. (So far, its efforts have been pretty laughable.) Doesn't it make sense, then, to nominate someone who, at least for now, actually seems to excite and inspire people?

Posted by CaseyL | December 15, 2006 6:07 PM

(Illinois politics aren't exactly minor league.)

They are in the context of running for president.

I'm aware that he has no national political experience. But I weigh that against the corroding effects of being in the Senate too long. If he waits until 2012, he'd be running against, please God, a Democratic incumbent. If he waits until 2016, he might have lost his edge, subsumed by Senatorial clubbiness. That pretty much leaves 2008, if he's serious and seriously ambitious.

Again, this is a reason for Obama to want to run now; this is NOT a reason for sensible people to want to vote for him. There's nothing wrong with staying in the Senate and doing good, important work there, unless you're dismissing the Senate as nothing more than a stepping-stone to the presidency. If that's how Obama sees it, then fuck him: if he doesn't take the institution seriously enough to actually fill out one term, then he can't be trusted with the White House. And if the prospect of serving in the Senate for multiple terms is unbearable to him, he shouldn't have run in the first place.

Posted by Christmas | December 15, 2006 7:11 PM

I don't see how you can say that we don't know where Obama stands. He has not just published, but actually written (unlike most politicians) two books that are quite clear about what he thinks.

He is quite willing to say that he is a liberal. It's not just what he says, he has been consistent in his actions. He could have written his ticket to a big salary with any big firm in the country after finishing as the first black president of Harvard Law Review. Instead, he has consistently worked as a community organizer, teacher and legislator in public service since he first got out of college.

Obama is thoughtful, intelligent, articulate and earnest. He can write. Many politicians who are revered as great were gifted writers - Jefferson, Lincoln, Churchill.

I think it would make America look better to the rest of the world if we could elect a black President, and since he spent years of his childhood in Indonesia I think we'd have a leader with an unusual understanding of the Muslim world.

Since Obama is outspokenly religious and very involved with the traditionally black church, perhaps he'd be more palatable to some of the fundamentalists than other Democrats.

Would all this stack up to a good President? Maybe. But maybe he'd turn out more like Jimmy Carter than Abraham Lincoln.

I don't think Obama is using the Senate as a stepping stone. I think a lot of people are urging him to run for President, and I think that is seductive. He is ambitious, and he does have ambitious goals.

It may be that Obama's popularity is peaking too early. We really don't know what he'll look like a year from now.

Posted by Sherry | December 15, 2006 8:57 PM

"Fawning press coverage" isn't a bad thing to have on your side, esp. if the alternative is the Kool Kidz Klub candy-coated malice."

Unfortunately the press doesn't fawn over Dem politicians for too long. JFK might have been the last Dem the press really liked. These days they have crushes on GOP politicians; Reagan, Bush, Rudy and of course John McCain.

My guess is their Obama crush will be over long before the first primary.

Posted by Nan | December 15, 2006 10:36 PM

If Bush goes along with McCain's insane plan to add 20-30,000 troops to Iraq McCain is toast

Ok, I know we're talking about Democrats in this thread... but somewhere right now a Guardsman is realizing that he's about to be stop-lossed and get to go on yet another tour, just so Jeb can sink McCain in '08. Boy, the GOP sure knows how to respect the troops, eh?

Posted by RobW | December 17, 2006 7:09 PM