I have voiced my concerns about a Hilary nomination before, but an LA times story illustrates very clearly one of my points. The strategic worry that Hilary Clinton is very divisive character in American politics, and that should she win our nomination she would energize the republican base. That division would lead once again to another razor thin election which hinges on one or two states, and her coattails wouldn’t take our down ticket candidates very far.
That concern it seems is shared by highly placed democrats around the country:
The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.
A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.
A strategist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Clinton.
“The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she’s so damn unpopular,” said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. “I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn’t.”
“Republicans are upset with their candidates,” Arnold added, “but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls.”
The Clinton campaign tries to spin these negatives by saying that the public already knows a lot about here, and that she has already taken all the battering that the GOP noise machine can give. That isn’t very reassuring to me.
All of the stories about Clinton have had time to seep into our collective subconscious, and true or not they effect the way we see her.
What the Clinton campaign doesn’t say is that her edge over potential Republican candidates is much smaller than it should be, given the wide lead the Democratic Party holds over the GOP in generic polling.
The problem is her political baggage: A whopping 49 percent of the public says they have an unfavorable view of Clinton compared to 47 percent who say they hold her in high regard, according to a Gallup Poll survey Aug. 3-5.
Further I think we can look at several of our losing congressional candidates last time around for a similar pattern. Candidates like Lois Murphy who ran in 2004 and did well, but had high negatives and were unable to move their poll numbers despite a strong democratic year in 2006. Clintonites believe that they can overcome a 49% unfavorable rating. If they do they will be running against the tide of history in more ways than they usually boast.
A candidate’s unfavorability scores almost always climb during campaigns. If the pattern holds, Clinton has a historically high hurdle to overcome.
“For Hillary, who has been on the scene for so long and has had perception of her so ground in … there’s no question it will be really hard for her to change perceptions,” said Democratic pollster David Eichenbaum, who represents moderate Democrats in GOP-leaning states.
Hilary is trying to use electability as one of her strong points, but I think it one of the weakest points of her campaign. Not only is her unfavorable rating high, it is concentrated in several of the states we need to win if we want to change the electoral college to blue. In states like Colorado, which are definitely on the table in a generic mach-up have Hilary with at negative 16 point favorablility gap. It will be hard to win that open Senate seat in Colorado and several other states if Hilary is on the top of our ticket. There are a lot more seats like that.
She is just so polarizing,” the state lawmaker said. Clinton would drag any candidate down 3 or 4 percentage points, he said.
“I’m one of these Democrats who has some legitimate reservations, because the Clintons have in the past invigorated the Republican base,” said Carrie Webster, a leader in the West Virginia state House who served as executive director of the state party when Bill Clinton won the 1992 West Virginia primary.
The generic polls, and party identifications show that the Democratic party has a chance to win and win big in 2008. With luck, skill, and the Republican’s continued failure to govern we could hold them down to around 30 electoral votes, win more seats in the House, the Senate and State Legislatures around the country. But, only if we have the right candidate. With her high negatives concentrated in red states, Hilary will only be able to eek out a slim Blue State victory at the best. At the worst she may be the only Democratic candidate besides Kerry to lose the popular vote in 20 years.
This is not my only reservation, or indeed my primary objection to a Clinton candidacy, but it is one that I think bears discussion.
I am strongly leaning towards Obama. This is not intended as conversation starter, not a hit piece.
Also available on DailyKos, Open Left, and My Left Wing.
Chris Bowers over at OpenLeft just published a story with very similar concerns, taken from a different source.
Well, imho Hillary has no where to go but downhill. Too long a campaign and she’s not gaining traction. In the main campaign, Hillary’s past will come back to haunt. So too, her credibility. Severely challenged.
Two articles in The New Yorker caught my eye. (H/T: Andrew Sullivan)
“Sparring Partners.”
and, from “The Shrum Curse.”
Hmmmm.
You might be interested in my piece on Obama’s foreign policy. Then again, maybe not. You seem to be saying I want to post my views, but back off already.
this is sad commentary, but it’s very true.
l’m in the mountain west, colorado, and there is a visceral, deep seated anti-hillary factor here. l’ve been trying to make this point for some time:
… l think from your vantage that you may not be as aware as you would like to believe re: the homey’s out there in the heartland.
you underestimate, or ignore, the intense, visceral dislike that these rednecks have for ms. clinton…and l’m not talking about just the rat-thuglican, christofascist fringe….a lot of these people are nominal democrats, and want a change, but they will never vote for her. period.
[…]
the biggest danger to hillary isn’t the grassroots progressives, it’s her history, or the perception of it…and the spin that the mighty wurlitzer is going to put on it will assure the d’s one again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
from the way back machine
that being said, if she’s the nominee l’ll probably vote for her, but l will contribute neither time, nor what little money l have, to her campaign.
it is what it is.
lTMF’sA
Here’s what worries me:
Today there was a Hillary commercial posted on dkos. It had a clip from one of her speeches. The theme was great: “You matter to me.”
The problem? I cannot stand her voice! From the very moment she starts to speak, it grates on me. I’m sure there are many others who feel the same way.
I hate to be so superficial, but…I think that if the nominee is Hillary, we lose.
Booman had a whole diary a while back about her voice. It made for amusing reading.
It’s hard for me to imagine a sceanario under which Hillary would win the general election. And if by some fluke she did win, her presidency would endlessly distract the nation with her and Bill’s personal issues, that by itself serving to paralyze the government.
There is no way I will vote for her. If she had any patriotic feelings at all, she would not be running. I really had had a sufficiently high opinion of her that I never thought she seriously meant to run.
At this stage, the only Dem candidate that I can see myself voting for in the general election is Kucinich. That is how fed up I am with the Dems. As an article in yesterday’s NY Times made clear, none of the “serious” Dem candidates has any plans to leave Iraq. (Characteristically, this article did not even mention Kucinich.)
Not that I’m a fan but I cannot imagine a scenario where Clinton, Edwards, or Obama does NOT win the election. It’s all about the nomination.
It’s not that hard to imagine such a scenario. Bush attacking Iran in October 2008, for example. What’s to stop him?
Barring some such new last-minute war, the only one that I think is a shoe-in is Edwards. The main reason I am not so sanguine as you is the experience with Kerry. Kerry was a real war hero; but the draft dodger Bush was able to beat him on national security grounds.
Because Obama is black and Hillary is a woman, I think either would be a much easier target for a Rethug smear campaign than Kerry was.
Remember, neither Hillary nor Obama really has anything positive to recommend them, since they do not distance themselves in any significant, substantive way from the Republicans. They just make vague pronouncements about “change”. If a Dem candidate for Pres does not make it clear what of substance he or she has to offer, he or she is easy for the Rethugs to shoot down.
At least Edwards comes from the south, is male, has made a concrete (if not very adequate) proposal about universal health care, and is willing to talk about income differences. The other two have the disadvantage of not being a white male, and yet they are following Kerry strategy, which failed (in the sense that it was possible to steal the election from him).
The Rethugs are so quick on their feet—and they always have the corporate media to reinforce their current line—that by the time the election is in full swing, voters may have been made to forget that Bush is a Republican.
The Swift Boat thing came out of nowhere, and the Dems never properly responded. If the Dems come up with Republican Lite again, a new Swift Boat-like gimmick could sink them in 2008.
It will take another 9/11 to give any of the current crop of Republicans any shot. The best they have is a Hillary v. Fred Thompson matchup. That would be a close election, but Hillary would almost definitely win.
The country thinks the Republicans are about as fun as stomach flu, and they’re getting less enchanted everytime they do a poll.
But, as they say, “There is no room for complacency.”
I think it’s already clear that the Rethugs want to win more than the Dems do. You need to believe in something to really want to win. If “serious” Dems believed in something, they would not cave to Bush at every opportunity.
I think that when Dems now look at the polls and say virtually anyone of ours is a shoe-in, the mistake they are making is overlooking that once there is a Dem nominee, the Rethugs will fight back, tooth and nail. And they will have the corporate media firmly on their side.
The only way a Dem can be a shoe-in is if he firmly distances himself from the Rethugs. But neither Clinton nor Obama are doing that. Do you deny they are already making the same mistakes Kerry made?
Remember, the main thing the American people want is out of Iraq, but neither Obama nor Hillary are giving them that. So if we are going to stay in Iraq, no matter which party wins the White House, what is the point of voting Democratic? “I will run this war better than Bush” didn’t work for Kerry. Why should it work for Obama or Hillary?
As they said in 2004, anyone but Bush. But Bush isn’t running this time. The Republican candidate won’t be Bush, either.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Republicans want to win more than the Democrats.
All evidence points the other way. The numbers are simply staggering.
In fact, this isn’t even the right way of looking at it. Don’t think in terms of what Dems and Repubs want.
Look at the facts.
What does that tell you? There simply are not any Republicans left. So, who cares what they want?
Well, if those poll figures can be trusted to be stable through the election, with no unforeseen events changing them dramatically (a big if in my opinion), then I guess my worries are groundless.
But if the Republicans are effectively out of the running in 2008, then the netroots should forget about the Republicans, and give all their attention and efforts to getting the most progressive Dems possible getting nominated at the various levels.
And the attitude of the netroots to Hillary should be: we want nothing to do with you. If one goes by the polls you mention, then Hillary could win without any help from us. So why give her the time of day?
If the Rethugs are all washed up, as you suggest, then a President Hillary would be nothing more than the new boss, same as the old boss.
Haven’t I been advocating exactly the attitude that you suggest?
Of course, you’re right, elections happen at a certain date in history and polls mean little this far out. Things can change. And the Republicans will have their say.
But anyone that thinks Hillary is unelectable just isn’t paying any attention to the numbers. If it keeps going this way Dennis Kucinich will be electable.
Clinton has really high unfavorables and does 3-5% less well than either Edwards or Obama in head-to-head polls. But her main problem will be as a drag on down ticket pols. Clinton v. Obama could be the difference between picking 2-3 Senates seats and 10-14. House seats will suffer similarly, perhaps even more dramatically.
Clinton promises us more divided government. Edwards or Obama have a huge potential upside to wash away the Blue/Red impasse and give us a true governing majority.
But [Clinton’s] main problem will be as a drag on down ticket pols.
I hadn’t been thinking about the coattails factor. A very good point.
I would add two other big problems with her: her Bill package, which would provide for endless gossip stories, and keep the country locked into a bad dream, instead of moving on; and her feeling she needs to prove, as a woman, that she can be as militaristic as the Republicans. These are not problems that arise with the other candidates. (The problem regarding the second point isn’t being a woman per se. For example, I don’t think that Nancy Pelosi needs to prove that, as a woman, she can be as militaristic as Republicans, even if she ran for president.)
As for the electability issue: I’ll concede Hillary is electable if you’ll concede that Kucinich is electable. 🙂
I personally think that Edwards COULD lose. Those self-same voters that everyone says will hate Hillary Clinton will take one look at his puffed-up self and walk away in disgust.
Plus I believe that a Clinton/Obama combination would make up for that so-called redneck antipathy to her …one that is is entirely theoretical at best, judging by her successes in New York State’s white rural areas. (Read Appalachia-like white rural areas. Bet on it.) Obama would bring in the minority vote, the youth vote, AND help with the female vote, which I think is going to be OVERWHELMINGLY pro-Clinton anyway by the time this whole farce is over.
As far as her appeal to the so-called heartland?
Look at this, please.
It is her first major TV spot this year. Used in Iowa for the coming primary there. Aimed DIRECTLY at the hearts of the very people who so many claim to think are ireparably opposed to her. And y’know what? I think it hits dead center on the target at which it was aimed.
For more on this idea, please go to my recent post Remember What The Yogi Said. It Ain’t Over ‘Til It’s Over.> Read the whole thing, including my extended tip jar. It all pertains.
She is going to prevail over f the nay-sayers.
Watch.
AG
P.S. And yes, her voice sucks.
Too bad.
Deal with it.
America is going to have to do so.
Watch.
Nothing of substance. I think people are tired of this. And why does she keep on comparing herself to Shrub? He’s not running.
As regards Edwards, that he couldn’t carry his home state in 2004 is not a good sign.
But given that the poll numbers suggest that just about any Dem could win the presidency in 2008, I don’t see why you keep on boosting the most right-wing candidate.
I am NOT “boosting” her. I do not believe that she needs much boosting, to tell you the truth. On the evidence.
Nor has she proven herself to be “right wing” yet.
Only acts count in this game, Alexander.
Not words.
If she has “proven” anything so far in her political career, it is that she possesses a combination of political pragmatism and a stubborn streak that that drives her to continue to attempt to get something done that will benefit the people of America.
What I AM trying to do is reach the kneejerk anti-Hillary left as it presents itself on these blogs, because it can and will harm her chances of winning in 2008 if it continues its own alliance with the right wing in trying to stop her.
The right has some DAMNED good reasons for opposing her, and by God…they do. Vehemently.
You guys?
Really.
Please.
What has she ever done to you to deserve this kind of continuing vilification?
Other than…of course…winning.
Which is ANATHEMA to the elitist left.
The Henry Wallace syndrome.
FDR endured the same sort of thing. And he was ANOTHER one who got things done.
One of the FEW Presidents who managed to do so.
Riiiiight…
And if he had not come to power and taken action when he did the ongoing Depression would have made this country so weak that we would ALL be speaking German now. Except for those on the West Coast who would be speaking Japanese. And the Jews, who would all be dead at the present time. And the African-Americans, Native Americans and Hispanics of African descent, who would also either also be dead or in chains.
So keep on whaling away at her, if you must.
But when President Giuliani starts running his game…do NOT start crying to me.
‘Cuz I tried to warn you.
But NOOOOOooooooo!!!
You are too HIP to accept compromise.
So it goes.
Just as it always has.
Stupid lefties who think that they are smart versus stupid righties who do not give a damn HOW “smart” they are as long as they get those fucking brass rings and can start using them as brass knuckles to bludgeon the people of America into ever more submissive postures.
Here comes Edwards.
The Dukakis of 2008.
I can smell it now.
Edwards and his perm posing in front of a fighter jet.
You’d better hope not.
Later…
AG
If she has “proven” anything so far in her political career, it is that she possesses a combination of political pragmatism and a stubborn streak that that drives her to continue to attempt to get something done that will benefit the people of America.
That said, she really hasn’t impressed New Yorkers all that much. Don’t get me wrong, she’s not hated. But she’s certainly not loved, or even liked.
What New Yorkers will be saying to her in 2008 is “So long, and thanks for all the pork.” We knew what the deal was, and so did she. New Yorkers can’t be bought, but Mrs. Clinton knows we can be rented. 🙂
#1-Do not confuse New York City with New York State. Actually, I’ll bet you are confusing upper middle class Manhattan or Brooklyn for the REAL NYC. We are not ALL New York Magazine/Sunday Times/Sex In The City clones, and the whole state is not a bunch of wiseasses looking for whatever edge they can get so’s their lattés and condos will be within their grasp without too much undue stress. Gotta get their beauty sleep, and after all, it does takes SO much out of one to bitch and moan about Hillary.
#2-Ms. Clinton does not seem to much care about being loved, liked, or the garnering any other mass emotional reaction other than whatever is necessary for her to get elected so that she can get done what she has been trying to get done for the last 30 years or more.
In the 2006 NY Senatorial election, “she won 67 percent of the vote to Spencer’s (Her lame Ratpub opponent…VERY similar to whoever she will face in 2008. An incompetent representative of a totally corrupted political party. ) 31 percent, carrying all but 4 of New York’s 62 counties.
I’d settle for similar numbers nationwide in ’08.
So would she. Bet on it.
But not you and the rest of the leftiness kneejerk naysayers. You are still swimming in some adolescent dream of a “loved” President.
#3-Listen up, chump.
Reagan was “loved”. And short of our present Half-A-King George the Second here, he was the worst president that we have had since Herbert fucking Hoover.
Go ahead.
Keep sniping.
You may just get what you seem to want.
Fat Al Gore or that lame from South Carolina as our Democratic nominee.
Gee…I bet THAT’D be fun!!!
Give me a BREAK!!!
AG
North Carolina…do not confuse the two, as they are remarkably different. South Carolina is one of the three or four most conservative states in the union. North Carolina is a potential pick-up for any Democratic nominee not named Hillary.
I have geographic issues.
New Jersey, St. Louis…
North Carolina, South Carolina…
Here’s how I see the issue as a traveling musician.
I began to suspect when I was on the road with number of bands simultaneously…’early ’90s, Tito Puente, the Smnithsonian Jazz Masterworks Orchestra, the various Mingus bands…that no matter WHERE we went outside of cities that had a real personality (barring climatic diiferences) what was really happening was that:
1-We would take off in a plane.
2-We would fly in circles while they changed all the highway signs.
3-We would land and go to the same…slightly diguised…venue.
4-The same audience would show up.
5-The same opening band would play the same almost good jazz and/or latin jazz charts.
and
6-We would play the concert, go to the same hotel (Albeit w/a different name. Sometimes.), and start the same routine all over again the next day.
Nine months a year, just about.
North Carolina, South Carolina, East Carolina, West Carolina…it’s all the same Spam, no matter WHAT name you try to lay on it.
That’s what I have seen, anyway. Your results may certainly differ.
Only the accents differ. The words remain the same.
Later…
AG
P.S. Edwards is a lame no matter WHERE he comes from. PARTICULARLY since he comes from south of the Manson-Nixon Line, which runs across this great country east to west just as crooked as a snake with a broken back.
But that’s just my two cents.
Which are worth even less after today’s seconf panicked sell-off on Wall Street.
We do not HAVE Black Mondays anymore.
Just Bruised Tuesdays, Charteuse Wednesdays, Multi-Color Thursdays, and Thank-Fucking-God-It’s Fridays, Maybe-The-Fed-Will-Save-My-Goddamned-Retirement-Fund-Again!!!
Hmmm…
Think Hillary would have a benevolent effect on the economy?
Clinton I was a pretty good time to be a working stiff.
No?
but irrespective of them all, i agree 100% that her negatives would make her unelectable.
…from the dead because he was the last Democratic Presidential candidate who got better than 50% and had any type of coattails. Democrats don’t win landslides. The demographics just aren’t there. Anyone who thinks any of the 2008 Dem candidates can win big and have coat/skirt tails is seriously delusional.
If by January Hillary looks like she’s going to get the nomination and the rethugs don’t come up with anything better than the current crop of bozos, I predict that Mike Bloomfield will come out of the bushes and announce. He could beat Hillary in a general election, and the consequences would be devastating for our Congressional efforts, which would be destroyed by the need to push money towards the Presidential race.
if you really mean Mike Bloomfield the musician, I might get behind that!
I assume you really meant Bloomberg. I don’t agree that he’d beat Hillary in a general election, and despite the amount of money he could spend I don’t see him doing well in repub primaries in Jesusland.
I really wish she would put her ego aside and stay in the senate. I’m still hoping GOre gets in the race and drowns her out.
Setting aside questions about policies and positions for the moment….
Yeah, but a lot of her negatives are because the right wing media has been going after her for years, so my gut is that the negatives won’t go up much more. Plus, the recent trends have more people turning away from right wing media, so she has an opportunity to win some of them over.
Any other candidate we come up with would immediately be attacked by right wing media, and if unchecked would also get some huge negatives. Fighting back against this sort of thing is something that Democrats aren’t very good at, but as time goes on we have been getting better at it.