The Clinton Magic

Jon Chait says the Clintons' political skills have been overrated:

The reality is less dramatic. Bill Clinton defeated a recession-weakened president with some help from a third-party spoiler, stopped the GOP from cutting highly popular social programs, won reelection during an economic boom and rallied his own party to thwart a wildly partisan impeachment crusade. None of these triumphs required unusual political skill. [...] Of course, if anybody beat the Republican attack machine, it was Bill. Hillary Clinton wasn't on any ballot in the 1990s. [...] In her November 2000 Senate race, she ran five points behind Democratic ticket-topper Al Gore in New York, and Gore himself was hardly a beloved figure at the time. [...] Clinton and her supporters gripe about Obama's charms -- the packed stadiums, the witty comebacks, the starry-eyed fans. Well, yes. It isn't cheating. This is what you get when you're an extremely good politician.

I do think discussion of the 1992 election has tended to get unreasonably polarized around implausible alternatives. You tend to either here that Bill Clinton's victory in that race marks him and his team the uniquely brilliant Only Democrats to Win In Decades or else maybe that he only won because Perot was in the race. Lost here is the excluded middle option that his victory wasn't fake or illegitimate, but simply not especially impressive. Given the circumstances -- foreign policy off the table, recession, a third-party candidate whose rhetoric mostly targeted Bush, 12 years of GOP rule -- the landscape was very favorable to the Democrats, just as the landscape was very favorable for Hillary Clinton in her 2000 Senate bid.

Neither of those elections were gimmes, and the Clintons certainly performed competently, but somehow Bill has acquired the reputation as a super-talented politician while John Kerry's considered a joke, even though Kerry clearly would have won if we'd had 1992-style economic conditions in 2004.

Comments

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | March 4, 2008 11:50 AM

The only Democratic president to serve two full terms since FDR. Must've done something right.

Posted by Jose Padilla | March 4, 2008 11:51 AM

Say what you want, but I'll never forget the hilarity of "Enough with the big rallies!"

Posted by Tony | March 4, 2008 11:53 AM

Sure, he did something right, but that doesn't mean he's preternaturally awesome and incapable of making incorrect political calculations.

The same, of course, goes for the other side. Remember, up until about 2005 a lot of people thought Karl Rove was a genius who had changed politics forever, but now he looks like a buffoon.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 4, 2008 11:56 AM

Foreign Policy off the table? Bush had just finished up a most popular and successful war. To pretend that GHWB wasn't extermely popular 12 months out is insane. He was so popular that it scared away most Democratic heavyweights from running for President.

Posted by Rob | March 4, 2008 12:00 PM

Bill had high approval ratings. In fact, he's the only president to ever leave office with higher approval than when he came in. His late-second-term ratings were even higher than Reagan's, who's remembered as so popular. And he gave a great speech. As Bill said of Huckabee "He knows how to give a speech and tell a joke."

Posted by DCreader | March 4, 2008 12:04 PM

Bill has acquired the reputation as a super-talented politician while John Kerry's considered a joke, even though Kerry clearly would have won if we'd had 1992-style economic conditions in 2004.

This is just stupid. Counter factual "might-a-been" analysis might be fun but it is less than useless. Kerry "clearly would have won" if he'd been less of a pod. But he was a huge pod, so he didn't win.

Chait's analysis of the '92 election is hardly original. This is precisely the analysis given by Republican partisans as election day neared and it was clear that Bill was going to win. People forget that Perot temporarily left the race in late summer because he was so impressed by the Democratic Convention (as absurd as that sounds). And with Perot out of the race, Bill was still well ahead and on his way to victory.

People also forget that George H. W. was, following the Gulf War, basically the most popular president in history. The Clinton campaign was able to deflect foreign policy (where Bush was way ahead of him) as an issue and focus the election on the economy. And they were able to deflect the kind of dirty, mud slinging campaign tactics that had killed Dukakis and later killed both Gore and Kerry. And when he left office he was far more popular than Reagan.

No, Bill was far from perfect. But give credit where it is due. He is the most successful Democratic politician of the past 30 years. You really can't argue with that.

Posted by Rob Mac | March 4, 2008 12:04 PM

I wonder how many people are out there who (like me) never cared all the much for Bill but absolutely *love* Hillary. Like, I'm not joking, I really love her -- in a way I've never been drawn to a candidate before. I think Obama supporters largely feel the same about their candidate. I grew up during the Clinton years but I actually preferred Gore and (gasp) Kerry as candidates and men over President Clinton. When I tell people I support Hillary for president, I would say over 50% of them say something to the effect of "well yeah, Bill was a pretty good president" or "at least she'll have Bill there." It's odd -- I have no interest in defending Bill Clinton or his presidency. I just like Hillary.

Posted by Ryan | March 4, 2008 12:04 PM

"even though Kerry clearly would have won if we'd had 1992-style economic conditions in 2004."

I don't think that's clear at all. We didn't have economic disaster when Kerry ran in 2004, but we did have a disastrous war, and if you recall, the bad news out of Iraq at the time of the election was constant and devastating. I still can't quite believe that W survived it.

But one reason, surely, was that Kerry is a wooden and ineffective pol, who could hardly attack on his best issue after he said he would STILL have voted for the war, even knowing everything he knew by the time of the 2004 campaign. His position on his best issue was incoherent.

I think the situation was actually better for the challenger in 2004 than it was in 1992. Kerry was just awful.

Posted by jbd | March 4, 2008 12:06 PM

I saw the film The Green Mile for the first time the other night. It reminded me of Rickey Ray Rector the black man who was self-lobotomized and unfit to stand trial, yet Bill Clinton flew back to Arkansas, mid-campaign, to put Rector down and demonstrate he's tough on crime.

Is this what Petey's talking about when talks about the Clintons' commitment to Democrats' "core values"?

Posted by Peter K. | March 4, 2008 12:12 PM

Bush's position in 2004 wasn't that unfavorable. He was still helped by his 9-11 boost, although Iraq had pushed his approval down from 90% to 45-50%. A good chunk of voters thought that Iraq was going poorly but voted for him anyway because of a reluctance to "change horses midstream".

I think Matt's right about the economy--if the national unemployment rate had been over 7% as it was for most of 1992, Kerry would have won narrowly instead of losing narrowly.

Posted by nodakdude | March 4, 2008 12:16 PM

The Clinton campaign had a ready response to Republican smears in 1992. He was incomperable in his "town meetings". He was able to discuss policies and politics in a way that people understood. He was charming. He listens. He has people skills in number and degree that is very rare. It makes people want to vote for him and to screw him. He may not be the best political strategist but he's a hell of a candidate.

Posted by LowLife | March 4, 2008 12:17 PM

The statement "foreign policy off the table" makes it sound as though certain conditions just exist. Bush the elder certainly tried to keep it on the table. Clinton's approach took it off the table.

Kerry might have won in 1992, but I think Bill Clinton would have won easily in 2004.

Posted by JoshA | March 4, 2008 12:18 PM

"You tend to either here . . ."

Sorry, should be "hear".

Posted by Seedee Vee | March 4, 2008 12:20 PM

Kerry gets dismissed largely because (1) he lost, and (2) there was a perception by some of us that he didn't do everything he could have to help himself win a close election. His infamous ski vacation after Super Tuesday...the millions left unspent in his campaign coffers...these would have been instantly forgiven if he'd won, but because he lost they really rankle.

Also, Matt, isn't it time for another lame-ass "these states don't count" post?

Posted by gustav | March 4, 2008 12:22 PM

Bill was mercurial. He had incredible skills, and it's not fair to discount them. But those skills mostly got put to use in digging himself out of holes of his own creation.

This is what Obama means by saying the political gains of the 1990s never created a lasting movement. The most skilled politician spent much of his energy directed at self-preservation.

Posted by David B. | March 4, 2008 12:26 PM

In talking about the "conditions" surrounding the 1992 election there are two different periods to look at. Yes, the economic conditions for Clinton at the time of the election were extremely favorable. At the same time, it took tremendous political courage to risk jumping into the race in 1991 when Bush was wildly popular. Some very big name politicans decided to sit it out. Whatever you may say about his political skills, Clinton did have a sense for strategic timing.

Posted by Merle | March 4, 2008 12:30 PM

I take a semi-contrarian view on 92.

Perot didn't want to win, but he didn't want Bush to win, either. He was an intentional spoiler against Bush.

If Perot didn't drop out, he plausibly could have won (he was at, or near the top of the polls, IIRC).

Clinton was wise enough to take advantage of the opportunity, which is a crucial political skill. My theory doesn't really do much to add to the debate beyond that.

Posted by danimal | March 4, 2008 12:32 PM

Chait's analysis of the '92 election is hardly original. This is precisely the analysis given by Republican partisans as election day neared and it was clear that Bill was going to win. People forget that Perot temporarily left the race in late summer because he was so impressed by the Democratic Convention (as absurd as that sounds).

It does sound absurd, because it's obviously false -- Perot bailed because his numbers were cratering, as people started expecting more policy specifics from him and he clearly wasn't up to the task. Clinton had already surged from third to first in the polls.

Perot then re-entered the race toward the end, taking advantage of the GOP's anti-Clinton barrage and in effect ensuring that the Democrat didn't get more than 50% of the vote.

Anyone who thinks Perot helped Clinton either doesn't remember or is engaging in intentionally revisionist history. But then, as Rob Mac notes, this is pro-GOP spin, so of course it's going to have far greater longevity than it deserves.

Of course, Bill Clinton's genuine skills as a politician don't inherently make his wife great at politics, nor has it kept the people around her (including Bill) from seeing 2008 too often through a flawed late-1990s prism. But let's not get stupid and start saying he was a ordinary slob who lucked out in '92.

Anyone who thinks Pero

Posted by Swopa | March 4, 2008 12:33 PM

I take a semi-contrarian view on 92.

Perot didn't want to win, but he didn't want Bush to win, either. He was an intentional spoiler against Bush.

If Perot didn't drop out, he plausibly could have won (he was at, or near the top of the polls, IIRC).

Clinton was wise enough to take advantage of the opportunity, which is a crucial political skill. My theory doesn't really do much to add to the debate beyond that.

Posted by danimal | March 4, 2008 12:33 PM

Winners are ALWAYS overrated and losers always underrated. Another of the media's "virtues".

Posted by bajsa | March 4, 2008 12:36 PM

Huh? Bill Clinton is a great politician. A guy who out of political expediency presided over the execution of a retarded death row inmate and thoughtlessly squandered the Democrats' political capital but still charms the pants off people (sorry).

Come on.

Posted by Lucy | March 4, 2008 12:38 PM

This is just crazy. Clinton came from (relatively) nowhere in 1992, was counted out due to the Gennifer Flowers fiasco and later due to Whitewater, united the party despite being a centrist, and won the general election easily against an incumbent who was at 90% approval a year and a half before. Foreign policy was a non-issue? Clinton made it a non-issue with "It's the economy, stupid!" He ran one of the more brilliant campaigns of my lifetime.

Kerry in 2004 ran on--what? I still don't know. That he served in Vietnam, I guess. By so doing he ran away from what was memorable about his service (his opposition to the war) and from his entire Senate career. Bill Clinton would have taken the Swift Boaters and shoved them up Shrub's ass. Kerry lost to the weakest incumbent I've ever seen, and he did so because he is just an incredible doofus.

Posted by calling all toasters | March 4, 2008 12:41 PM

i actually want to take up another part of chait's comments.

perhaps (in honor of his recent passing), chait should go back and read norman mailer's "superman comes to the supermarket," a highly perceptive 1960 analysis of jfk and the then-new phenomenon of charismatic presidential candidates who packed houses, had witty comebacks, and delivered a helluva set piece speech.

anyone care to argue that jfk was a swell politician?

jimmy carter (although you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone today who will admit to it) was actually very high in approval ratings when he took office and really only cratered late in his term.

anyone care to argue that jimmy carter was a swell politician?

thus far, obama has been an excellent primary candidate and he obviously gives an excellent speech: if he's nominated and wins, he could be a helluva president.

and then again, he could be jfk or carter.

we'll know if obama is an extremely good politician if he, you know, actually accomplishes something in politics. until then, he's an extremely good campaigner, which, while not to be taken lightly, isn't the same thing....

Posted by howard | March 4, 2008 12:43 PM

Democrats have had a lot winnable elections over the past thirty years.... so I don't think its a coincidence that the only two they won were led by Bill Clinton with the strong support of his wife Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I would never claim that the Clintons - either Bill or Hillary - are somehow unique political geniuses who are singularly capable of winning. What they have, that most Democrats lack, is the kind of toughness to be resilient in the face of endless barrages of attacks by political opponents and enemies, and criticism from the media, and still go on successfully. And also the ability to fight back hard when necessary and to do what it takes to win. After all, you don't get to govern if you don't win.

Both Bill and Hillary have demonstrated an ability to not only deliver punches, but to take a punch. They've each done so multiple times over the years and been left standing.

Remember that Hillary came in third in Iowa but still managed to bounce back in New Hampshire 5 days later, despite the fact that NH had become a close race before Iowa had even voted. She was beaten badly in South Carolina and held her own on Super Tueday despite the Obama media love-in surrounding the Kennedy endorsement.

Recall that Howard Dean lost Iowa in 2004 and proceeded to fold like a cheap tent.

We're talking about somebody with an inner steel and resilience that I would never discount if I were you all.

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 12:52 PM

In a scholarly article in the American Journal of Political Science, Dean Lacy and Barry C. Burden stated in 1999 that by participating in the race,

... Ross Perot increased turnout by nearly three percentage points in 1992, and his candidacy decreased Clinton's margin of victory over Bush by seven percentage points.

In other words, if Perot hadn't been in the race getting about 19% of the vote, Clinton would have won with about a 12% margin in the popular vote rather than the 5.5% he had. This would have been a landslide (56-44). But the Republicans, with help from many of the rest of us, have successfully convinced people that Perot helped Clinton, and since Clinton didn't get a majority of the popular vote, he wasn't a popular President.

The Abstract of this article can be viewed at JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/). The article's title is The Vote-Stealing and Turnout Effects of Ross Perot in the 1992 U.S. Presidential Election. At the time of publication, Dean Lacy was at The Ohio State University and Barry C. Burden was at Louisiana State University. Now they are at Dartmouth and Wisconsin respectively (I think).

Posted by Lukeness | March 4, 2008 1:06 PM

John Kerry? Ha! Funny one Matt.

You really are a card.

Posted by Armando | March 4, 2008 1:21 PM

FWIW: Michael Dukakis received about 46% of the total popular vote in 1988. Bill Clinton received 43% of the popular vote in 1992.

Posted by Moonlight | March 4, 2008 1:21 PM

"Not especially impressive"?

Are you kidding me? Clinton's effort in 91/92 was massively impressive.

Bill Clinton survived and persevered through a barrage of scandals and controversies during the heart of the 92 primary season which would have torpedoed any other Dem candidate you could name. I'm a huge Obama fan, but Obama would've been crushed by any one of the things that Clinton overcame (bimbogate, didn't inhale, draft dodger... etc). In 1992, Clinton demonstrated that he was the greatest, most talented, hardest-working political warrior you'll ever see.

The only time Clinton got "lucky" was when Colin Powell decided not to run in 1996. (Not saying Powell would've won, or even gotten nominated, but he would've been a much more challenging opponent than Dole.)

Posted by oyster | March 4, 2008 1:32 PM

I tend to think this question needs to be split into at least two parts.

On the question of whether Bill Clinton was a strategic or even tactical "genius", I think the evidence for that proposition is thin to nonexistent. For example, strategically, people tend to give him credit for running on economic issues instead of foreign policy in 1992. But frankly, you really would have to be stupid to reach any other strategic conclusion at the time. Tactically, people note that Clinton recovered from multiple scandals. What they tend not to remember is that Clinton often made those scandals worse with his initial reaction (e.g., "I didn't inhale").

But on the different question of whether Clinton was good at things like speaking to people and generally making them like him, of course he was. In fact, it was that ability which allowed him to both make people believe he would do something about the economy ("I feel your pain") and which helped him survive his scandals despite his tactical blunders.

Of course, the basic problem for Hillary Clinton is that Bill Clinton's speaking skills and general likability are for the most part nontransferable. And again, I think there is little evidence that he is particularly insightful when it comes to strategy and tactics, which would have been transferable. So there you go.

Posted by DTM | March 4, 2008 1:38 PM

Bill has acquired the reputation as a super-talented politician while John Kerry's considered a joke, even though Kerry clearly would have won if we'd had 1992-style economic conditions in 2004.

This may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this blog.

Posted by right | March 4, 2008 1:42 PM

The Republican candidate's share of the popular vote dropped 16% from 1988 to 1992, whereas the Democratic candidate's share dropped only 3% during those years. It seems pretty obvious that, after being shut out of the White House for 12 straight years, the Democrats by and large stuck with their guy while the Republicans splintered. Not to take too much away from Bill Clinton--obviously a talented politician--but he was definitely in the right place at the right time.

Consider this hypothetical scenario: In a 3-way presidential race between John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore who would win? Obviously McCain. Does that prove that McCain is a uniquely superior candidate?

Posted by Moonlight | March 4, 2008 1:50 PM

Thank you, Lukeness, for pointing out the obvious. Much as I like Chait, he and others perpetuate this myth. Look, HW Bush got 37% of the vote. When was the last time an incumbent received a share this tiny? 1912 - Taft against TR and Wilson. Even Hoover did better in '32. Perot split the 63% anti-incumbent vote with Bill. It was an anti-incumbent year.

Kerry ran just the most pathetic campaign, up there with Dukakis. Even seasoned Democratic operatives called the recycled Mondale stuff out.

Posted by MaxGowan | March 4, 2008 2:10 PM

"Bill was mercurial. He had incredible skills, and it's not fair to discount them. But those skills mostly got put to use in digging himself out of holes of his own creation.

This is what Obama means by saying the political gains of the 1990s never created a lasting movement. The most skilled politician spent much of his energy directed at self-preservation.

Posted by David B. | March 4, 2008 12:26 PM"

Best comment on the blog. Bush the elder was probably the most popular one-term president of recent memory and won an actual war, not just a Grenada-type "me cock be huge" smackdown on a small island. He was probably the best Republican president since Eisenhower, including of course up to today. Clinton does get credit for beating him.

Of course, it should be noted that even with Perot in the race, he should have beat Dole by a lot more in 1996 than he did and shouldn't have lost 1994 like he did. Often the incumbent president suffers a bit in the midterms, but losing the House to the Republicans for the first time in years was just bad.

Self-control was also an issue, leading him to waste his time and energy, as well as the talents of some of his Rhodes scholars crew, smearing the likes of Flowers as cheap lying whores when they could have been out there spinning about health care. Clinton never seemed to realize that the media was going to scrutinize his private behavior, yet it kept on happening. Impulse control is not his forte'. After all, if he hadn't made his Jesse Jackson outburst after South Carolina and instead had toured black churches reaching out to his strongest supporters, Clinton might be pulling in 50% of the black vote like she was doing earlier, meaning she would probably have beaten Obama by now.

Posted by Reality Man | March 4, 2008 2:39 PM

DTM:

Keep convincing yourself that Hillary is a weak campaigner with no political skills. Just watch what happens tonight.

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 2:42 PM

And somewhere in Matt's argument lays this one:

No Democrat - not even Bill Clinton - has won more than 50% of the vote since 1976...

1976 - Carter: 50.1%
1980 - Carter: 41.0%
1984 - Mondale: 40.6%
1988 - Dukakis: 45.7%
1992 - Clinton: 43.0%
1996 - Clinton: 49.2%
2000 - Gore: 48.4%
2004 - Kerry: 48.3%
*Numbers via USElectionAltas.org

While Carter (in '76), Clinton, and Gore won the popular votes in their elections, a majority of Americans voted against them.

Wrapped up in almost 30 years of that sort of voting pattern is some seriously embedded anti-Democratic sentiment among voters at the presidential level.

It's not an obstacle that can be overcome easily, thus this year's candidate will have to fight hard to appeal to an actual majority. I just don't think Clinton is the candidate who can do that.

Posted by Wayne | March 4, 2008 2:45 PM

Reality Man:

Wrong again. The Clintons - both Bill and Hillary - were well aware that his private behavior could very well become an issue in the campaign, and that factored in heavily in Bill's decision to run in 1991/92.

I think it's naive to think that African Americans would not be voting heavily for the first credible African American candidate with a solid shot at the nomination. I don't think the ways some of those remarks were perceived helped matters, but once Obama proved his ability to win major contests he was always going to receive the lion's share of the black vote.

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 2:49 PM

"Thank you, Lukeness, for pointing out the obvious. Much as I like Chait, he and others perpetuate this myth. Look, HW Bush got 37% of the vote. When was the last time an incumbent received a share this tiny? 1912 - Taft against TR and Wilson. Even Hoover did better in '32. Perot split the 63% anti-incumbent vote with Bill. It was an anti-incumbent year."

MaxGowan,

Clinton and Perot did not split the anti-incumbent vote. Clinton held onto most of the Democratic coalition that had voted for Dukakis and Mondale, and picked up some Reagan Democrats from Bush I. Bush I held the Republican core, while losing Republican-leaning independents and Reagan Democrats. Perot grabbed the Republican-leaning independents from Bush I, took some Democratic-leaning independents from Clinton, and split Reagan Democrats with Clinton.

The bottom line is that Bill Clinton's success at defeating George H.W. Bush owes a large part to the presence of Ross Perot in the race. Perot caused the Reagan coalition to splinter in 1992 the way TR's Bull Moose candidacy caused the McKinley coalition to splinter in 1912, and Bush I was unable to put that coalition back together. Clinton was a savvy enough politician to take advantage of this situation, and for that he deserves credit. (Dukakis and Mondale would have still lost under those conditions.) Take Perot out of the equation in 1992, the chances of a Clinton victory greatly diminish. 1992 would have probably finished like 2000, with Bush I eking out a narrow popular and electoral college vote win over Clinton.

Posted by eltoro | March 4, 2008 2:58 PM

Tim K, African-Americans, perhaps more than voters of any other race, show a willingness to vote for people of a different race. Hell, O'Malley, who lives in a part of Baltimore that may as well be a rich white suburb, was recently mayor in Baltimore. Just about the two most popular white politicians with African-Americans were Bill and Hillary Clinton. When Obama didn't win in New Hampshire, there was some worry that he couldn't win. Yes, his share among African-Americans had been growing, in part because he was winning and in part because but it wasn't as overwhelming as it has become post-SC. Also, if he had truly understood how much the media was salivating over having more Clenis stories, he would have kept it in his fucking pants. It's not that hard to do. Even if he was horny, he was supposed to be focusing on pushing for liberal ideas, not wasting his time not getting caught.

"Keep convincing yourself that Hillary is a weak campaigner with no political skills. Just watch what happens tonight.

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 2:42 PM"

She had greater institutional advantages than just about any nominee who wasn't either a sitting president or vice president. She may still eke a win out of this, but this campaign was never supposed to be this hard-fought. Winning on name recognition and people having warm and fuzzy memories of when your husband was president in a primary for the same party as your husband isn't exactly showing political skill. We are talking about the same person who helped to tank the Clinton machine in 1994.

Posted by Reality Man | March 4, 2008 3:01 PM

I believe a study that was done of Perot voters from 1992 showed they split roughly evenly between Democratic and Republican congressional candidates down ballot. There isn't really any objective evidence that Perot Voters were overwhelming Republican or conservative.

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 3:03 PM

"I think it's naive to think that African Americans would not be voting heavily for the first credible African American candidate with a solid shot at the nomination. I don't think the ways some of those remarks were perceived helped matters, but once Obama proved his ability to win major contests he was always going to receive the lion's share of the black vote."

Wrong again, Tim K.

Unlike like John Kerry or Howard Dean or John Edwards, Hillary Clinton had an enormous reservoir of goodwill among African-American voters. While it was a given that Obama would wind winning most of the African-American vote once he had established himself, it was not a given that he would win the African-American vote so overwhelmingly. It was very possible for Clinton to win 45% of the African-American vote, particularly among African-American women. There's no reason she couldn't have been competitive with Obama among African-American women the way Obama has been competitive with her among white men.

The simple truth is that Hillary Clinton made missteps with her campaign that have served to alienate the affections of most Black voters. This alienation is not necessarily permanent, however.

Posted by eltoro | March 4, 2008 3:15 PM

Reality Man:

I really wish you would stop trying to perpetrate the fraud that somehow Hillary Clinton was like Mamie Eisenhower. Hillary Clinton doesn't just have institutional advantages because she happens to be married to Bill Clinton. She's been working on campaigns for Democrats since 1972, some of her contacts in Texas go back that far. She won three-quarters of the votes in Arkansas because they know her and she led efforts to reform that states abysmal educational system. She has support in New York from being elected as Senator there and serving out her full term and representing her whole state well. She has the support of elected officials across the country because she worked hard to campaign for them, and advised Bill in his efforts to help them out as well... whether it be Tom Vilsack or Ted Strickland, or Jon Corzine, or countless others. It's a lot more complicated than you are making it out to be.

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 3:18 PM

To add a further wrinkle: you could apply Chait's observation to the Political Genius Reagan, as well. Had Reagan succeeded in wresting the '76 nomination from Ford, he would almost surely have lost, and worse than Ford -- he would have been the scary right-winger running in an anti-GOP climate. By 1980, he was (still) the scary right-winger, but running against a guy thought to have driven the country into a ditch (with John Anderson helpfully siphoning off liberal votes -- a third-party effort somehow not as well-remembered as Perot's). Nixon had already done the scut work, steering the country away from its decades-long Dem lean, so Reagan was able to sail in claiming a huge mandate. And the defense-fueled boom of '84 gave him easy re-election.

None of this is to denigrate Reagan's -- or Clinton's -- political abilities. Charismatic candidates (and that's really what we're talking about, more than tactical skill) tend to run in favorable circumstances (see also: FDR, who'd planned to wait till '36, post-Hoover, except the Depression opened a path earlier), achieve much by the force of their persuasive powers, and get re-elected as result of those achievements. You could also get the feeling god smiles on them, given the good things that have befallen them (like low oil prices, for both Reagan and Clinton), and the bad things that have stayed away (like the high oil prices of '80 and now).

I do agree with what was said above: what Clinton had that worked was not genius but charisma, and not only is that non-tranferable to Hillary...it's something that's far more present in her opponent. Which is why she's almost certain to lose this race, whatever happens tonight.

Posted by demtom | March 4, 2008 3:29 PM

Tim K.:

She has support in New York from being elected as Senator there and serving out her full term and representing her whole state well.

Well, considering her ambitions to be President, New York was a good state to pick to become Senator for. It has a lot of delegates.

I sort of hope she stays in the race even if she doens't win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by big 60-40 margins.

You'll see the anger of the Obamabots jump a notch, or rather, a quantum leap.

The Clintons have permanently tarnished their reputations and "place in history."

Posted by Peter K. | March 4, 2008 3:31 PM

Tim K,

If Clinton beats where she was in the polls in Texas and Ohio as of about a month ago (before she and Obama both started actively campaigning in those states), I will be happy to reconsider.

Posted by DTM | March 4, 2008 3:39 PM

DTM:

That's a ridiculous expectation. Barack Obama has outspent Hillary in paid advertising by a factor of at least 2-1 in Texas and Ohio. He has had all the momentum and positive press that comes with eleven consecutive primary and caucus victories. It would be absurd to expect Clinton to be able to hold a 20 point lead in the face of that.

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 3:42 PM

The simple truth is that Hillary Clinton made missteps with her campaign that have served to alienate the affections of most Black voters.

Yeah, and not just Black voters.

Nice try conflating Hillary and Bill, Tim K. Bill is a great politician; Hillary is not. Further, as we have seen these past weeks, Hillary behaves badly. It's been embarassing watching her whine about Obama's popularity and rhetoric while taking a stab herself at rousing speeches (and failing), making cheap shot after cheap shot at the debates, hand the GOP a general election ad on a silver platter, and blame the media for all her problems. After a while she just sounds petulant and grating. Yes, some of these are esthetic concerns, but together with the policy and other arguments against her, they matter. She does not comport herself well, and I for one am sick and tired of wincing at the president of the United States.

Posted by Lucy | March 4, 2008 5:04 PM

Tim K,

Yes, it is true that in the extended series of contests that make up a primary campaign, doing poorly in prior contests tends to have negative effects for future contests, for a variety of reasons.

Now, one would think a person who was strategically sophisticated and in general a good campaigner would realize all this and act accordingly. So, I am not sure why you think the fact that Clinton has placed herself in this position somehow invalidates the results as a test of her campaign skills.

Posted by DTM | March 4, 2008 5:45 PM

Whatever ekse you say about him--Bill Clinton knew how to run for office. Kerry, not so much.

Posted by Korha | March 4, 2008 7:47 PM

Whatever ekse you say about him--Bill Clinton knew how to run for office. Kerry, not so much.

Posted by Korha | March 4, 2008 7:47 PM

Whether Clinton magic remains a problem for the candidates is debatable since Bill Clinton has remained in the background since Obama's complain of his conduct in SC.

But his "shadow presence" cannot be discounted as irrelevant, something Obama's campaign, and perhaps Obama himself are aware hoping to attack it early on, and did during SC.

It's rare that when Presidents leave office, or even those who have mounted substantial campaigns would not engender loyalties that operate as wild cards in future campaigns though. There were still Gore loyalists who contemplated another Gore run after the 2000 election, and even in 2008 there has been talk of his stepping into the race. So, loyalties run deep for favored candidates. No doubt there are still Kerry loyalties that influence future elections despite the fact that both Gore and Kerry lost.

In states, the longevity of Dukasis supporters is near legendary even 20 years after his failed run.

So, it's not unlikely that there would be Bill Clinton loyalists who perceive Hillary's run as a third term for Bill. Those influences cannot be ignored nor discounted among voters, and may be as legitimate as the choice to run any other third party candidate like Nader, etc. in the fielding of candidates.

The degree to which they are organized or have influence upon current campaigns is an interesting feature of campaigns that few have researched or identified, whether considered legitimate or illegitimate.

It would be difficult indeed to presume there is no influence, or to mandate that such an influence is not possible, or prohibited.

Voting rights is also the right to vote political conscience, and therefore, such splinter groups must be considered legitimate, and to varying degrees effective in any election as a modifying influence if they exist. It may be probable that recognition of those splinter groups is more desirable than not recognizing them since otherwise they form a larger, covert shadow behind a campaign that campaigns are unable to identify as influences with which they must contend. In terms of government transparency, out is the open is probably best for democracy than behind the scenes. Organized politics prefers transparency therefore.

Posted by Pat | March 17, 2008 11:56 AM