Options
Hillary Clinton Might Be the Least Electable Democrat
sweetpotato
Posts: 1,278
I've been saying this all along... if Hilary gets the nomination, we're f*cked (we Dems I mean...).
Hillary Clinton Might Be the Least Electable Democrat]/b]
By Guy T. Saperstein, AlterNet
Posted on December 7, 2007, Printed on December 7, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/69916/
Last Sunday's New York Times contained an op-ed by Frank Rich ("Who's Afraid of Barack Obama," Dec. 2) suggesting that, for a variety of reasons, Barack Obama is the Democrat the Republicans fear most. While Rich emphasized Obama's authenticity, his early and unequivocal opposition to the Iraq war and his cross-over appeal to independents and Republicans, missing from his otherwise excellent article were polling results confirming why Republicans fear an Obama presidential candidacy and why they would prefer to run against Hillary Clinton.
While Clinton maintains her lead in national polling among Democrats, in direct matchups against Republican presidential candidates, she consistently runs behind both Barack Obama and John Edwards. In the recent national Zogby Poll (Nov. 26, 2007), every major Republican presidential candidate beats Clinton: McCain beats her 42 percent to 38 percent; Giuliani beats her 43 percent to 40 percent; Romney beats her 43 percent to 40 percent; Huckabee beats her 44 percent to 39 percent; and Thompson beats her 44 percent to 40 percent, despite the fact Thompson barely appears to be awake most of the time.
By contrast, Obama beats every major Republican candidate: He beats McCain 45 percent to 38 percent; Guiliani 46 percent to 41 percent; Romney 46 percent to 40 percent; Huckabee 46 percent to 40 percent; and, Thompson 47 percent to 40 percent. In other words, Obama consistently runs 8 to 11 percent stronger than Clinton when matched against Republicans. To state the obvious: The Democratic presidential candidate will have to run against a Republican.
Clinton's inherent weakness as a candidate shows up in other ways. In direct matchups for congressional seats, Democrats currently are running 10 percent to 15 percent ahead of Republicans, depending on the poll, while Clinton runs 3 percent to 7 percent behind -- a net deficit ranging from 13 to 22 percent. No candidate in presidential polling history ever has run so far behind his or her party.
To look at Clinton's candidacy another way, Clinton runs well behind generic polling for the presidency: In the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted Nov. 1-5, 2007, voters were asked, "Putting aside for a moment the question of who each party's nominee might be, what is your preference for the outcome of the 2008 presidential election -- that a Democrat be elected president or that a Republican be elected president?" By 50 percent to 35 percent, voters chose "Democrat" -- a 15-point edge. Thus, Clinton is running 10 to 15 percent, or more, behind the generic Democratic candidate. This is not a promising metric nor the numbers of a strong candidate.
Look at Iowa: It is neck-and-neck, with Obama, Clinton and Edwards running close among the first tier of Democratic candidates. But Clinton is the only woman running against seven men, yet polls only around 25 percent. When you have been in the public eye for 15 years and are well-known, when your husband was a popular president and remains perhaps the most popular Democrat in America, when you are the only female candidate in a race against seven men, but you are polling just 25 percent, you are not a strong candidate.
I had occasion last week to speak for an hour and a half with a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in a battleground state. Without revealing who I favored in the Democratic primary, I asked, "Who would help you the most at the top of the Democratic ticket in November 2008?" Without hesitation, the candidate [who cannot take a public position in the presidential primary] responded: "I can tell you who would hurt me the most -- Hillary Clinton. She has 30-40 percent of voters in my state who never would vote for her under any circumstances, and she is no one's second choice. Her support is lukewarm, at best."
In a recent article in the New Republic, Thomas F. Schaller quoted two Midwestern politicians about the negative effect of having Clinton lead the Democratic ticket in 2008. Missouri House Minority Whip Connie Johnson warned, "If Hillary comes to the state of Missouri, we can write it off." Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Indiana stated, "I'm not sure it (Clinton candidacy) would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag."
Karl Rove recently commented on Hillary's candidacy, observing that she had the highest "unfavorable" ratings of any presidential candidate in modern polling history. In the USA/Gallup Poll, over the past two years, Clinton's "unfavorable" ratings have ranged from 40 percent to 52 percent and currently are running 45 percent -- far higher than any other Democratic or Republican presidential hopeful and higher than any presidential candidate at this stage in polling history. Hillary Clinton may be the most well-known, recognizable candidate, but that is proving to be as much a burden as a benefit.
Another factor to consider is the power of Clinton to unify the opposition. While the field of Republican candidates is uninspiring, if not grim, Clinton is a galvanizing force for conservatives. While Clinton-hatred may be unfair (I happen to think it is), the intensity of animosity conservatives have reserved for the Clintons is unprecedented. They want to run against her not only because she may be the weakest candidate, but also because they hate her and what they think she stands for. I am not endorsing this hatred, which I consider irrational and destructive, but Democrats need to consider that her candidacy, more than any other Democratic candidate, has the potential to motivate and activate the opposition.
To be fair, it should be noted that not all polls find Clinton on the short end of polling disparities, and some have found her polling at parity, or sometimes even slightly ahead, of Republicans (generally, within the margin of polling error). But this should not obscure the main point: By every measure, Clinton's support runs well behind congressional Democrats, well behind generic Democrats and, generally, behind her Democratic presidential rivals in matchups with Republicans.
Bill: When will the other shoe drop?
Every presidential candidate inspires humor. In the case of Bill and Hillary, it is an avalanche, including the "Hillary Spanking Bill Clinton Whipping Magnet" for refrigerators across America. But what about Bill's proven 30-year history of womanizing? Should we assume these patterns have disappeared? Or should we assume there may be more revelations about Bill's continuing liaisons with women that Republicans will produce during the general election, taking voters back to memories of Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky, with Hillary playing the role of Bill's enabler? Given Bill's past conduct, wouldn't it be prudent for Democratic voters to assume this is an additional liability a Clinton candidacy might have to carry in the general election?
When the beginning point for Clinton is at or behind her Republican opponent, and 10 to 15 points behind the Democratic Party, how many liabilities can her candidacy sustain? Even if there is less than a 50 percent chance of more revelations about Bill, is it wise for Democratic voters to ignore this risk, roll the dice and take that chance when the presidency is at stake?
If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, I will support her candidacy and hope for the best, because I am not sure much of America would be left after another four to eight years of a Republican presidency. But shouldn't Democrats be thinking strategically about who comes to the table with more strengths, fewer liabilities and fewer potential game-changing surprises? I sure hope so.
[size=-5]Guy T. Saperstein is past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."[/size]
Hillary Clinton Might Be the Least Electable Democrat]/b]
By Guy T. Saperstein, AlterNet
Posted on December 7, 2007, Printed on December 7, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/69916/
Last Sunday's New York Times contained an op-ed by Frank Rich ("Who's Afraid of Barack Obama," Dec. 2) suggesting that, for a variety of reasons, Barack Obama is the Democrat the Republicans fear most. While Rich emphasized Obama's authenticity, his early and unequivocal opposition to the Iraq war and his cross-over appeal to independents and Republicans, missing from his otherwise excellent article were polling results confirming why Republicans fear an Obama presidential candidacy and why they would prefer to run against Hillary Clinton.
While Clinton maintains her lead in national polling among Democrats, in direct matchups against Republican presidential candidates, she consistently runs behind both Barack Obama and John Edwards. In the recent national Zogby Poll (Nov. 26, 2007), every major Republican presidential candidate beats Clinton: McCain beats her 42 percent to 38 percent; Giuliani beats her 43 percent to 40 percent; Romney beats her 43 percent to 40 percent; Huckabee beats her 44 percent to 39 percent; and Thompson beats her 44 percent to 40 percent, despite the fact Thompson barely appears to be awake most of the time.
By contrast, Obama beats every major Republican candidate: He beats McCain 45 percent to 38 percent; Guiliani 46 percent to 41 percent; Romney 46 percent to 40 percent; Huckabee 46 percent to 40 percent; and, Thompson 47 percent to 40 percent. In other words, Obama consistently runs 8 to 11 percent stronger than Clinton when matched against Republicans. To state the obvious: The Democratic presidential candidate will have to run against a Republican.
Clinton's inherent weakness as a candidate shows up in other ways. In direct matchups for congressional seats, Democrats currently are running 10 percent to 15 percent ahead of Republicans, depending on the poll, while Clinton runs 3 percent to 7 percent behind -- a net deficit ranging from 13 to 22 percent. No candidate in presidential polling history ever has run so far behind his or her party.
To look at Clinton's candidacy another way, Clinton runs well behind generic polling for the presidency: In the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted Nov. 1-5, 2007, voters were asked, "Putting aside for a moment the question of who each party's nominee might be, what is your preference for the outcome of the 2008 presidential election -- that a Democrat be elected president or that a Republican be elected president?" By 50 percent to 35 percent, voters chose "Democrat" -- a 15-point edge. Thus, Clinton is running 10 to 15 percent, or more, behind the generic Democratic candidate. This is not a promising metric nor the numbers of a strong candidate.
Look at Iowa: It is neck-and-neck, with Obama, Clinton and Edwards running close among the first tier of Democratic candidates. But Clinton is the only woman running against seven men, yet polls only around 25 percent. When you have been in the public eye for 15 years and are well-known, when your husband was a popular president and remains perhaps the most popular Democrat in America, when you are the only female candidate in a race against seven men, but you are polling just 25 percent, you are not a strong candidate.
I had occasion last week to speak for an hour and a half with a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in a battleground state. Without revealing who I favored in the Democratic primary, I asked, "Who would help you the most at the top of the Democratic ticket in November 2008?" Without hesitation, the candidate [who cannot take a public position in the presidential primary] responded: "I can tell you who would hurt me the most -- Hillary Clinton. She has 30-40 percent of voters in my state who never would vote for her under any circumstances, and she is no one's second choice. Her support is lukewarm, at best."
In a recent article in the New Republic, Thomas F. Schaller quoted two Midwestern politicians about the negative effect of having Clinton lead the Democratic ticket in 2008. Missouri House Minority Whip Connie Johnson warned, "If Hillary comes to the state of Missouri, we can write it off." Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Indiana stated, "I'm not sure it (Clinton candidacy) would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag."
Karl Rove recently commented on Hillary's candidacy, observing that she had the highest "unfavorable" ratings of any presidential candidate in modern polling history. In the USA/Gallup Poll, over the past two years, Clinton's "unfavorable" ratings have ranged from 40 percent to 52 percent and currently are running 45 percent -- far higher than any other Democratic or Republican presidential hopeful and higher than any presidential candidate at this stage in polling history. Hillary Clinton may be the most well-known, recognizable candidate, but that is proving to be as much a burden as a benefit.
Another factor to consider is the power of Clinton to unify the opposition. While the field of Republican candidates is uninspiring, if not grim, Clinton is a galvanizing force for conservatives. While Clinton-hatred may be unfair (I happen to think it is), the intensity of animosity conservatives have reserved for the Clintons is unprecedented. They want to run against her not only because she may be the weakest candidate, but also because they hate her and what they think she stands for. I am not endorsing this hatred, which I consider irrational and destructive, but Democrats need to consider that her candidacy, more than any other Democratic candidate, has the potential to motivate and activate the opposition.
To be fair, it should be noted that not all polls find Clinton on the short end of polling disparities, and some have found her polling at parity, or sometimes even slightly ahead, of Republicans (generally, within the margin of polling error). But this should not obscure the main point: By every measure, Clinton's support runs well behind congressional Democrats, well behind generic Democrats and, generally, behind her Democratic presidential rivals in matchups with Republicans.
Bill: When will the other shoe drop?
Every presidential candidate inspires humor. In the case of Bill and Hillary, it is an avalanche, including the "Hillary Spanking Bill Clinton Whipping Magnet" for refrigerators across America. But what about Bill's proven 30-year history of womanizing? Should we assume these patterns have disappeared? Or should we assume there may be more revelations about Bill's continuing liaisons with women that Republicans will produce during the general election, taking voters back to memories of Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky, with Hillary playing the role of Bill's enabler? Given Bill's past conduct, wouldn't it be prudent for Democratic voters to assume this is an additional liability a Clinton candidacy might have to carry in the general election?
When the beginning point for Clinton is at or behind her Republican opponent, and 10 to 15 points behind the Democratic Party, how many liabilities can her candidacy sustain? Even if there is less than a 50 percent chance of more revelations about Bill, is it wise for Democratic voters to ignore this risk, roll the dice and take that chance when the presidency is at stake?
If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, I will support her candidacy and hope for the best, because I am not sure much of America would be left after another four to eight years of a Republican presidency. But shouldn't Democrats be thinking strategically about who comes to the table with more strengths, fewer liabilities and fewer potential game-changing surprises? I sure hope so.
[size=-5]Guy T. Saperstein is past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."[/size]
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
i'm not an obama person, really. i do think john edwards has a fighting chance.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
i think edwards is the best chance of getting a democrat into the whitehouse.
Perfect example of candidate transparency. She IS Bush...so was Bill they're the same people when it comes to opinions. One serves, the other spikes..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
thank you! tho i think you & i may be the only ones who realize that.
unfortunately, i think this country is not yet ready to elect either a woman or a black prez. and edwards has been through the whole presidential run before (as the VP candidate, i mean). he's not perfect, i'm the first to admit that. but he's our best hope, imo.
and i understand the kucinich supporters, but he has as much chance of the nomination as ron paul has of the republican nomination. in other words, none.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
we had a chance to put him there last time, and failed. I'm ready for another Clinton in the white house. The Dems have this election in the bag already...basically because the republicans got nothing this time around.....i mean c'mon when Guliani is one of your early front runners, you're toast.
You better be carefull gettin all cushy like that.
It could cost "ya'll" the election.
Voter complacency is already a problem, don't call the election before the primaries even start.
:rolleyes:
Besides,
the GOP has a GREAT candidate in Ron Paul, they just would prefer he not be in the GOP.
If he pulls out the votes though, watch out Dems, you got nothin on that man!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
you mean because none of the dems are certifiable?
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
I guess if not being a political hack, a shill, a liar or a crook is crazy, then yes.
They got nothing on him.
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
hon, he's a politician. trust me, he's not your messiah. he just wants your vote. then it'll be either politics as usual, or first class tickets to kookyville.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
dempublican
republocrat
Forget sides entirely and follow the most honorable message. Three candidates possess it, one is leading it and actually making it a viable reality, and so incredibly soon. Integrity...values...honesty.. Pretty hard to fake those traits your entire life.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
a.
you KNOW i ain't your damn "hon"
b.
clearly you haven't looked at the mans record.
He is ANYTHING but your typical "politician".
As he said himself in the last debate,
"I don't think Washington has changed me."
If I opened it now would you not understand?
"She is a political coward. She goes around pandering to powerful interest groups on the one hand and flattering general audiences on the other. She doesn't even have the minimal political fortitude of her husband."
—Ralph Nader
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
is Ron Paul the one with the full support of the KKK?
I agree. He has the presidential hair. He's nice looking (seriously, these things help). His wife's struggles may make it harder to go after character.
Even though he is the best chance, I'd still put an Edwards topped ticket (not yet knowing who the running mate is) as an underdog against any republican.
It's a done deal. GOP in '08. The Democrats are going to insist on running a senator (and a woman or black candidate to boot) as opposed to a Governor. Is a governor more qualified? No. But a governor is more electable.
I'm not a Paul fan. I like some of him and don't like other parts. I fear if he had his way, he'd eliminate things like OSHA and Child Labor laws. (Perhaps I am wrong).
And it is true that he is the KKK's favorite candidate (maybe not offically, but predominately). But for an opponent to use that against him would be pretty dirty. It's not that important. They probably like him because he's probably against afirmative action and they also tend to want the government to go away. But that does not make him an endorser of KKK positions. It's not a suprise, but from a bigot perspective, it's pretty much an anomaly.
what is it they say about being the company you keep...
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
You know.
I'm actualy waiting for another candidate to bring this or his alleged remarks in the 96 newsletter up in an upcoming debate.
If his racist ties are real, you think they'd be all over them. Hell, if you could even suggest it was true, you would.
Mostly, i just want to see how Dr. Paul responds.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
wtf does it mean to be unelectable anyway, and who has the ability to dub someone unelectable?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I think unelectable means someone who based on polls looks to be slaughtered in an actual election against the opposition party. Now of course a lot cane happen between now and the presidential election, but personally this news about Hillary does not surprise me and the points made sound highly valid. Personally I cringe at the thought of HC winning the Democratic nom because I strongly doubt she could defeat any but the worst Republican candidates.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmgphotos/4731512142/" title="PJ Banner2 by Mister J Photography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1135/4731512142_258f2d6ab4_b.jpg" width="630" height="112" alt="PJ Banner2" /></a>
they are currently the 2 leading cadidiates in the countries largest political party...
i think we are ready... i think it is overdue... and i think we will have a black president
with edwards as VP
yeah, but a Majority of the Minority doesn't vote.
now they have a reason too...
they have only had white males to choose from... i think if obama gets through the primary you will see a record # of minority voters
I hope you're right.
So the majority of the minority is intrinsicly rascist and doesn't feel compelled to cast a vote unless the candidate is black?
Even if it's not latent rascism, it's pretty stupid if the only motivating factor is the candidates skin color.
Why didn't they vote for Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson in past elections?
:rolleyes:
Hell, the guy is black, he must be a great man and agree with me.
God know as a white man, i have agreed with EVERY candidate for president in past elections!
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
plastic city... long live the CFR gang...
Let's hope we see some integrity voters come into full understanding over the next year and get the country back on track.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
best hope for what exactly? he's one of the worst dems, if he is your best hope. Then we are all really screwed.
Edwards is a pro war zionist bulldog. But sadly that's a positive for some voters.