Okay, I'm not a fan of "electability" arguments and this result is an outlier, but things like this ought to make people wonder if this is really the front runner the Democrats need: "More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News."
« The World Is Flat | Main | Taliban Spreading »
Uh-Oh
30 Jun 2007 08:45 am
Comments (51)
Well since well over half of Americans won't bother to vote anyway, I'm not sure that's much of a concern for the senator.
Matt, you've been making "electability" arguments against Clinton for months. Remember the "she's the least liberal and perceived as most liberal -- worst of both worlds" argument?
I don't really worry about her being able to win in 2008; pretty much any Dem could win in this environment, and her campaign operation is excellent. But she'd have no coattails and once in office her opposition would unite, making it nearly impossible for her to govern even in the incremental, tinkering way we'd expect. Then she'd probably lose in 2012-- barring a continuing GOP crisis, & I think she'd be the best thing that could happen to reunite the party-- and we can't afford that.
I don't think there's anything wrong with using electability as a criterion. One should just be careful about it. The idea that Kerry was "most electable" was basically nonsense made up by the Kerry camp with no particular evidence behind it. The idea that Clinton is the least electable this year is made pretty obvious by poll after poll.
It seems that the more the CW echo-chamber trys to tell us how unelectible and unfavorable Hillary is, the stronger her candidacy gets.
If my own experience is any indication, the more I'm lectured to regarding how much I really hate Hillary, the more determined I am to see her elected.
Furthermore, given the fact that Hillary readily bests the field in debates, polls, and fundraising, one wonders HOW MUCH better does Hillary have to do to be given her due?
John is right, electability is still a valid consideration, it is just that Kerry was not necessarily the most electable Dem in 2004. This does not mean, though, that Howard Dean would have been a viable candidate (Trippi now says that if Dean had gotten the nomination it would have been a 49 state blow-out).
While no 2008 candidate may be particularly electable we should avoid nominating the least electable of the bunch (and also the least liberal).
The vast right-wing conspiracy has succeeded in making Clinton perceived as someone contemptuous of plain folks like us and a hyper-liberal. Go to a medium sized city in any swing state and hang around the beauty parlor or the café and listen in until the talk turns to politics. Outlier or not, the number of people who just can't stand Clinton is very high and makes nominating her a big gamble.
Gawd, HRC is her own Ralph Nader; she'll build defeat on the backs of the very people least comfortable with a Republican Executive. I wouldn't have thought it possible for a Republican to win in '08 until now.
On the bright side, if HRC gets the nomination and loses the general, it will kill the Clinton machine and take--one hopes--more than a few DLC careers down the tubes. Not worth the cost, by a long shot, but at least something good could come out of it.
Hillary Clinton is not electable because she and the current president share the same political style: secrecy, stubbornness, rancid contempt for the other side, a partisanship based on personal loyalty rather than ideological agreement . . .
In 2008, at least 51% of the electorate will decide it doesn't want any more of that.
The Democrats cannot afford to lose in 2008; the country cannot afford it. One more Supreme Court justice like Alito or Scalia means complete presidential dictatorship and the neutering of Congress, even assuming the Democrats hold it. A compliant court system would then allow the Republican president to rig the system to make it very difficult from a Democrat to be elected in 2012.
Hillary's opposition is so high because it combines conservatives with Iraq war opponents. I do think that she can squeak to victory, but we really need on the order of 53-55% to make it impossible for the Republican vote-suppression machine to steal the election (note: they steal elections not by hacking the voting machines, but by preventing blacks and Latinos from voting).
It's funny that the post progressive candidate in the race, the one whose positions most horrify the DLC, is the most electable.
Trippi now says that if Dean had gotten the nomination it would have been a 49 state blow-out
Really? That seems excessive. Kerry won 54% or more in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. I find it hard to see any Democratic losing those states in 04. But that still leaves Dean losing Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin, which seems a plausible outcome. A Dukakis caliber defeat, rather than a Mondale caliber one.
I'm not voting for Hillary. If it comes down to a three way race between her, Rudy, and Bloomberg I'm leaving. I think in the long view of history that's going to look like a good decision. Three middle east hawks (or two) competing for GW Bush's vacating seat makes me seriously question the worth of American democracy.
What Matt is pointing out should be totally obvious to anyone living in a red state over the last 15 years. The woman has been made radioactive by the ad nauseum tar and feathering that she has undergone. There are still a large number of people for whom a rational discussion about the merits of HRC are totally impossible, and I don't mean 19%. She is the almost the Dem's equivalent of GWB and she will rally former GOP people to vote against her that may have otherwise stayed home or even considered a Dem.
Couple that with the simple latent misogyny in the electorate, and you have a recipe for another loss on the big stage. The irony being that she probably is the most likely to win the Dem nomination but also the most likely to lose to a GOP candidate when the chips or down.
Personally, I like some of what she brings but not enough to take such a gamble on losing in the big game. Moreover, I am growing wary of the political royal family trends that continue to develope in this country. I believe they are anathema to the spirit of the government.
The Democrats need a likable, charismatic candidate, for chrissake.
Why do people keep making the same mistakes again and again ?
"'Trippi now says that if Dean had gotten the nomination it would have been a 49 state blow-out'
Really? That seems excessive."
I agree. I think Trippi meant that as hyperbole.
The fact is that Hilary is a sure loser against any of the Rethuglicans except for Brownback or Tancredo who are total nutcases. The strongest Democratic candidate would be either Edwards or Richardson, amongst the current aspirants. The Democrats would be better off drafting Bloomberg then running Hilary.
"If my own experience is any indication, the more I'm lectured to regarding how much I really hate Hillary, the more determined I am to see her elected."
You're a single voter who supports her. Think of how the Bush base backs him the more we attack him.
Oftentimes electibality arguments aren't all they're cracked up to be, but everyone in America knows who she is. Everyone already has an opinion.
Barack Obama can and should be the JFK candidate of 2008. Young, fresh, brilliant, unencumbered by a "yes" vote on the Iraq War and vibrant.
He's got sex appeal and intelligence. He's liberal but speaks from the heart like Clinton.
Given his fundraising prowess, he'll only need a few victories to knock Hillary off the "leadership" position and take the whole enchilada.
I also think Gore's going to run.
Most likely: Gore/Obama runs.
Or Obama/Richardson if Gore doesn't run.
I don't think Hillary makes it out of the primaries.
These numbers mean nothing. People are considering Senator Clinton in a vacuum when responding to this poll, not in the context of an actual general election campaign vs a specific Republican candidate. When it comes down to deciding do they want 4 years of Guiliani/Romney/Thompson (and 4 more years in Iraq) or 4 years of Clinton (and at least some possibility of ever leaving Iraq), I see no reason why Clinton can't win. The red states aren't voting for a Democrat anyway, so it hardly matters if she is hated there. Purple states like Ohio should be much more winnable in '08 thanks to the Iraq war and the lack of an incumbent President on the ballot (and lack of a corrupt Secretary of State disenfranchising voters).
Clinton is by no means my first choice, but I actually think she would run the strongest general election campaign. I have a lot of doubts about whether Obama or Edwards is ready to fight the Republican smear machine in the general. I'm sure Clinton is.
I have a lot of doubts about whether Obama or Edwards is ready to fight the Republican smear machine in the general. I'm sure Clinton is.
"Fight," maybe. "Succeed," no. Unless the disagreement is about whether or not having more than half the country turned off by you to the extent of claiming that they won't vote for you is success.
I've always been a bit nonplussed by Clinton's claim that she's particularly qualified to 'fight' the GOP and 'win'... my impression through the nineties was that the Clintons outmaneuvered the right more than they actually fought them. Bill, especially, was good at ducking and weaving, letting them become more and more enraged until they collapsed in their own fury-- and it's a great skill, one that often comes in handy in politics, but eventually someone's going to have to actually face the rightwing machine and give it a good, righteous, public beating. It's the only way to deal with bullies if you want them to lose their power over others.
Al Gore. Discuss.
"I have a lot of doubts about whether Obama or Edwards is ready to fight the Republican smear machine in the general. I'm sure Clinton is."
"Fight," maybe. "Succeed," no. Unless the disagreement is about whether or not having more than half the country turned off by you to the extent of claiming that they won't vote for you is success.
Gore and Kerry lost by not responding, so I'd say fighting back is definitely important. Both Hillary and Obama have shown already that they can do that.
As for outmanouvering, that was more Bill's style, not Hillary's.
In general, you shouldn't let conservatives decide who the Democratic candidate should be. Remember the bashing of Kerry. He was a war hero, but got smeared as the opposite. That teaches you that anyone can get smeared.
Hillary Clinton may of course get smeared in a election campaign. But it's not hard to smear Obama. You can, for example, say that he hasn't done enough for black people. That may seem outrageous, but it's the MO of Karl Rove to go after strengths.
Would you vote for a stinking rich lawyer, who can spend 5 minutes brushing his hair?
Would you vote for someone who after a very messy divorce shacked up with a homosexual couple he knew?
Would you vote for someone who first criticized Jerry Falwell, then sucked up to him, and has been heard singing, "Let's bomb Iran"?
And so on.
Why can't you folks just reconcile yourselves to Hillary being your candidate already? She's been ahead by at least a few lengths for most of the race. Richardson is incompetent. Edwards is too far to the left and to much of a blatant snake oil salesman/hypocrite. Obama's calls for "transcending politics" ring hollow for anyone outside of the freshman dorms.
Polls are not a good thing to follow in that they are taken on landlines and half the people now have cell or computer hook up.
Plus, many are not even home when the polls are done.
they need to find a better way to poll as our lifestyle has changed.
I personally refuse to vote for Hillary period.
But, I have a link to a short video about why democrats always lose elections and if we pick Hillary we still have not learned a thing.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/#55665
I keep waiting for Obama to make his move, because he'd be the first candidate in a very long time that I could actually get excited about. I'm still waiting, but hey, the primaries are still 7 months away. I really hope the Democrats don't make the mistake of nominating HRC. News flash: big, giant swaths of the country hate her. If she wins, it'll only be because any Democrat could win in GWB's wake.
And thumbs down to the notion that "the red states" won't vote for any Democrat. Democrats won elections in all sorts of unlikely places in 2006. The House of Representatives delegations of Colorado and Indiana are both majority-Democrat now. Are the Democrats in 2008 going to continue their momentum from 2006, or will 2006 just be their high point, an anomaly?
As for outmanouvering, that was more Bill's style, not Hillary's.
Does Hillary have a style?- I mean, the only two 'fight the right' incidents I remember that didn't mostly involve some vague and mildly inspirational attempt to deflect the insults were her correct (but widely mocked, until the truth became too obvious to ignore) identification of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy,' and her looking like a bit of a victim when Rick Lazio invaded her space during that one debate. Other than that, she's basically been deploying some shills like Carville to toss a few handfuls of mud, which is more a distraction strategy than a real battle plan.
I guess if we accept that the GOP standards of politics & media management are going to be the norm for the foreseeable future, with no hope for anything other than a slight majority of minor tactical victories being possible, then yes, HRC is capable of slinging insults, push-polling, & occasionally winning a few points. For those of us who want a more open and honest fight, though, I have to say I'm not seeing anything all that impressive there.
"Democrats won elections in all sorts of unlikely places in 2006."
And with all sorts of unlikely candidates, one might add: pro-lifer conservative Bob Casey Jr., Reagan's Navy Secretary Jim Webb, etc. You guys want to get clever, why not nominate someone like that for President?
I remember at least one other instance of Hillary tearing into Republicans, although I don't remember the details now. It was about Iraq.
As for "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" being mocked, the interesting thing is that she said it in the first place. Imagine if she had said nothing then, and ran as a candidate now.
As for push-polling, I don't know where you get this from. The point is to respond to attacks, at the very least to deny a lie about you. That is what is essential.
To not defend yourself against smears is not "an open and honest fight", it is dumb. Have you learned nothing from Kerry's debacle?
As for being impressive, it's about winning, not looking impressive. It's not a fashion show or a Mr/Miss World contest.
The question is if there should be yet another stupid war, or not. The difference could hardly be more stark, between the two parties.
Jesus, people, can we stay within reality just a litte?
A. No one cares what half the country think. We care about what half of Ohio thinks. And Florida. And maybe 3 other states. Hillary (or Obama) can lost by 25 points in Alabama and South Dakota for all I care. And Texas.
B. No Dem candidate would have done better in Ohio in 2004 than Kerry did. Or Florida. We are certain to do better in Ohio this time, without the apparatus of the Secretary of State's office actively tilting the voter pool.
C. Kerry did not lose Ohio and Florida because he didn't fight back -- although whining from people who should have preferred Kerry to Bush cannot have helped.
D. Do we really have to listen to people whine about how one of the Dem candidates, whichever it is, isn't enough better than the Republican candidate to deserve to win? Did you people learn nothing from 2000? Do you really want people who think Dick Cheney is a hero within 100 yards of the White House?
Did you people learn nothing from 2000?
I would have hoped that Dems would have learned not to run charmless mecha-candidates who are instinctively disliked by large parts of the voting populace. It looks like not. Which is what people are complaining about.
OK, fine, so we concede Texas and Utah. But if Hillary gives half of the country the heebie-jeebies, she probably gives half of the people in swing states like Ohio and Florida the heebie-jeebies, too. But Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and a fairly good swath of the Mountain West are winnable if we put a candidate out there who actually attracts voters instead of driving them away.
The Republicans had landslides in 1984 and 1988. Why not make landslides in the other direction our goal? If your strategy is to win 50% + one electoral vote, and you lose one state you that was yours, you lose the election.
Correction: read that as "you lose one state you thought was yours."
SomeCallMeTim:
I would have hoped that Dems would have learned not to run charmless mecha-candidates who are instinctively disliked by large parts of the voting populace. It looks like not. Which is what people are complaining about.
Precisely. If Hillary is our candidate, I'll vote for her, and I'll hope she wins. But I'd be a lot happier (and hopeful of a victory) voting for an Obama/Richardson or Obama/Schweitzer ticket.
"Why can't you folks just reconcile yourselves to Hillary being your candidate already? She's been ahead by at least a few lengths for most of the race. Richardson is incompetent."
It's not even July yet. Clinton is good at times at hitting hard at first, such as on torture, and then wobbing and weaving afterwards to not appear weak. Every time she impresses me, she qualifies her previous statement in a way to appear to me more conservative. Her gifts to the right tend to be creepy things like flag burning and violent video games.
If we Democrats nominate anyone other than Edwards or Obama, god help us, we are really stupid - the dinosaur with the giant body and tiny brain. If we nominate HRC, she could win the general - the GOP field doesn't look very swift - but it wouldn't be any kind of resounding victory, any kind of political epoch, which is about as called-for in '08 as you could reasonably hope it to be. It would be winning by a nose in a race with a 40 mph wind at our backs. Unbelievably mediocre. If we are that stupid, we sort of don't deserve to win. But we might anyway.
If you want liberals and lots of independents - if you want to realign big swaths of independents - nominate Edwards. If you want to roll the dice a little more and nominate someone brilliant with a lot of great potential, nominate Obama. If you want to merely react to Republicans, nominate HRC.
And, BTW, I think that HRC would be a perfectly good president - in a vacuum.
Other recent polls have shown HRC beating all the Republican candidates in a general election. A recent Newsweek poll, for example, had her getting over 50% against Giuliani. So I'm not sure how important the McClatchey poll is. It's troubling, I agree. But I don't think it means much at this point.
I am concerned about the approval ratings for Hilary, but I doubt their validity for predicting a campaign. Campaigning skill and toughness can make up for being personally unpopular. We saw this in Australia with Paul Keating in 1993.On a party vote the Dems will win, if the Repubs did nominate a candidate with broad appeal (it seems this could only be Rudy) the Dems need someone who outargue them and hold them accountable for Bush's record. Also who would be the best Dem president to work with a Democrat congress and to keep the party together once the unifying appeal of Bush is gone?
Hillary's negatives just indicate that the Republicans have had a head start in demonizing her. Any other Dem candidate will get there eventually. Hillary is actually the most electable. Because she's a woman, she'll be able to peel off some moderate Republican women who like the idea of a woman president.
By the way, this Pew poll finds that 43% of registered voters wouldn't consider voting for Hillary. Although that's worse than Obama's rating (34%), it's the same as Edwards' and better than Gore's (49%).
The fact that both Fred and Ragout are trying to support Clinton should tell you something. She's a loser. She lost Gore votes in 2000 even though she had a non-entity as an opponent.
Campaigning skill and toughness can make up for being personally unpopular.
You should read Nyhan on this. He says (based, I think, largely on his experience with a single campaign, but there may be some poli-sci knowledge there) exactly the opposite. I found him compelling.
And it would be great if people claiming that the same thing will happen to Obama or Edwards would point to evidence that the GOP has been able to create a substantial and persistent increase in the negatives associated with a person in eighteen months. Maybe they have. I don't know.
The fact that both Fred and Ragout are trying to support Clinton should tell you something. She's a loser.
She's not necessarily a loser, but Rob is essentially right - concern trolls abound. You'd think people could come up with a better hobby.
Kerry's unfavorability rating increased by 10-20 points over the course of the 2004 campaign. The typical poll shows his negatives rising from roughly 30% in early 2004 to 45% by election day.
Rob thinks that Hillary's appeal to moderates makes her less electable? How odd. FWIW, although I lean towards Hillary because I like her hawkishness and I think she'd be the best president, I find her too far right on domestic issues.
Rob thinks that Hillary's appeal to moderates makes her less electable?
She's famously losing moderates to Obama, as I recall.
According to Pew, Hillary is tied for first with Obama among liberal Democrats, and is leading among moderate and conservative Dems.
(1) I intended to reference independents (who, perhaps wrongly, I think of as moderates), not Democrats. After all, we're talking about her shot in the general, not the primary.
(2) Unless I'm reading the Pew findings you link incorrectly, HRC beats Obama with conservative Dems, ties him with moderates, and loses to him with liberals. This is based on the last table on the page.
Regarding Hillary's support among moderate Dems, I was quoting a table from the middle of the page. The last table on the page shows the percent of Hillary's supporters that are liberals (36%), moderates (39%), and conservatives (20%). It doesn't show the percentage of liberals that support her (51%).
Fair point.
Comments closed July 14, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
You are not a fan of electability arguments for good reason, but this is what you are reduced to given that none of your other arguments have any traction. If your candidate were showing signs of being 'electable' you would have a positive case to make.
Posted by tib | June 30, 2007 10:03 AM