My Hillary Problem

For the past several months, I have studiously avoided the intramural blood-letting that is the Democratic Primary. Mostly it’s because I genuinely believe that any of the Democratic candidates would make a far superior President than any of the Republican candidates. That is not just partisan loyalty talking – with the exception of the wholly unelectable Ron Paul, none of the Republican candidates has acknowledged any mistakes by the Bush Administration. That would lead one to believe that none of them thinks anything is wrong with this country, and a that four-year dose of “more of the same” is precisely what America needs.

Which is precisely why none of the Republican candidates must ever be allowed to enter the Oval Office, not even on a guided tour or if they win the National Spelling Bee. If the past seven years have taught us anything at all, it’s that Republicans cannot be trusted to run anything even remotely involved with the government. Republicans will lie, cheat and steal, and then when caught, they will lie about their lies. And then cheat and steal some more. This country has barely escaped the Bush Administration with our constitution intact, and we certainly cannot afford four more years. It must not be allowed to happen.

Which brings me to my personal nightmare scenario, one in which the Democrats nominate a candidate who is popular among ourselves, but so disagreeable to the rest of the country that the Republicans manage to win the Presidency because their candidate is just slightly less disagreeable than the Democratic nominee. President Giuliani or (heaven forbid) President Huckabee takes office with no clear mandate, but goes on to complete the destruction of our civil liberties that began in 2001.

Hillary Clinton is the front-runner among Democratic voters, at least as of last week. She is the spouse of a popular former Democratic President, and despite what her detractors say, she has acquitted herself reasonably well as the Junior Senator from New York. The problem is that nearly a year ago, when Sen. Clinton announced her candidacy, 46% of voters said that they would positively not vote for her. The mathematics of this fact are more than just a little discouraging – Clinton would have to win more than 90% of the remaining votes in order to gain a majority.

The Clinton Campaign sought to reframe the massive negative numbers, describing Sen. Clinton as “the most famous person nobody knows” in their belief that once people got to know the candidate better, those negative numbers would melt away. It’s been a year now, and even with the daily public exposure that comes with being the front-runner, Sen. Clinton’s most recent polling numbers from Rasmussen show a negative reaction by 44% of the electorate. Given a nearly a year to put her best foot forward, Hillary’s unfavorable ratings rank dead last among Independent voters.

What we’re seeing in head-to-head races (Democratic Nominee vs. Republican Nominee) is that both Obama and Edwards out-perform a Clinton candidacy, and that’s been the case for months now. Sen. John McCain actually beats Hillary in a head-to-head race. Given that Hillary’s negatives have barely budged during the past year, how can one reasonably expect that they will improve in 2008? Because let’s face it, the “attacks” that she has endured from her Democratic rivals will be downright gentlemanly compared to what’s in store for her in the General Election. Independent voters will be barraged with negative images of Hillary Clinton, images that will be reinforced by the mainstream media, and she will spend the campaign on the defensive.

So why do I care so much about Independent voters? This is the Democratic Primary, after all. The problem is that on 33% of the electorate self-identify as Democrats. And so while we can expect these voters to support whoever the nominee might be, that’s not going to hold true for the 37% who self-identify as Independents. If we nominate a candidate who is popular among ourselves, but wildly unpopular among Independents and potential cross-over Republicans, we will lose the 2008 Presidential Election. Electoral Math trumps Political Ideology. Every. Time.

I know that there are some on this board who are passionate in their support of Hillary Clinton, and I really (honestly) don’t mean to give offense. Please understand that if Hillary becomes the nominee, I will work just as hard for her as I would for any other Democrat. But I’m begging you, if you haven’t already made up your mind (and 15-20% of Democrats are still undecided), you really need to look at which candidate has the best chance of winning the 2008 Election. Moral victories (i.e., the first woman candidate) don’t count if we don’t end the day on November 4, 2008 with a majority.

We have too much to lose.

If we count the votes.

72 million Democrats
55 million Republicans
42 million independents

We need 13 million independents and NOT ONE REPUBLICAN. The Republicans need 30 million independents.

THE SIDES ARE NOT EQUAL. That's why they have to cheat.

But I really thank you for your concern. I can't tell you how much I enjoy seeing these tired talking points recycled over and over as individual opinion. I'm sure it was a great epiphany when you thought of it all by yourself.

The OP was sincere in his/her concern and went out of their way to be civil when presenting their case. I don't see why you feel the need to attack them personally for it. If it had been a mean spirited post I could fully understand your reply but given the tone of the OP I think you are out of line.

numbers that are germane to election climate.

Your numbesr indicate 43% Democratic affiliation. According to the http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750">Pew Charitable Trust, the Democrats have not been above 40% since 1982.

A more recent poll by http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95">Pew shows Indendents at 39%, Democrats at 33% and Republicans at 28%.

I'm also curious how you got to 169 million voters, given that only about 120 million voted in 2004.

In any case, assuming that 44% of all voters will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances, and assuming that every Democrat intends to vote for the Democratic nominee, then it means that Hillary would have to win about 20 million votes from Independents (based on 2004 turn-out). But her negative numbers are so high that it's more than just Republicans who won't be voting Democratic -- a significant number of Independents aren't going there either. Nearly every Independent voter who isn't already adamantly opposed to Hillary would have to vote for her.

That's a massively tall order for any candidate.

Actual head to head match ups yield more fruitful results than positive/negative ratings... After all we have elections and not referendums so Hillary Clinton will be running against another person; not herself...

I had no idea that Independents were ahead of the Dems.

from what I'm seeing and reading, that just isn't going to happen. People may just decide to sit this one out. However, the republicans will SURELY not sit this one out if Hillary is the nominee. They HATE Hillary - that's not a "talking point", it's the truth. I compare the way they feel about Hillary to the way we feel about bush, although Hillary has done nothing to deserve it, and bush has worked quite hard at deserving it. She'll be the best GOTV candidate the repukes ever had, and probably the worst for dems and independents.

Her negatives are VERY important, and I agree with the OP - we can't afford to take the chance in this election.

You assuming that Hillary is going to get those votes is a bit of a reach. I HOPE she does, if she wins the nomination, which I don't think is going to happen, but I surely wouldn't count on it.

Here are dozens and dozens of head to head polls... Hillary Clinton does quite nicely, ergo:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

More importantly, here are dozens and dozens of polls from (blue) , (red), and (purple) states... Not only does Hillary Clinton do nicely in them , she actually (outperforms) the candidate most likely to get the nomination if it is not her, ergo:

http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx

If you think Hillary Clinton is incapable of winning a national election there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

and they tend to support my point. In the RealClear polls, Clinton loses to McCain. Edwards and Obama generally do better than Hillary in the head-to-head.

I know that these are just polls and not a real election. But these numbers have been pretty consistent for the past year. How will they get better? If Hillary hasn't made her case to the country by now, when is it going to happen?

But we are parsing these polls way too much...

If you look at the evidence in toto, which is the only way a fair person looks at the evidence, Hillary Clinton beats all her Republican challengers and seems to better in red and purple state match ups than Barack Obama...

If you just believe Hillary Clinton can not win a general election there is nothing I or anybody could say to disabuse you of that notion....

Based on the RCP Averages, Hillary does better against Giuliani (+4.4%), Edwards does better against both Romney and Mccain (+18% and +5%) and Edwards and Obama both do better against Thompson (+11%)

What's more, the trend in many of the polls you provide indicates the gap between Hillary and her Republican opponents has been shrinking over the past six months.

As I said in the OP, I would swap President Hillary Clinton for George W. Bush or any other Republican any day of the week and twice on a Sunday. I'm not one of those people who believes that her ties to the DLC are somehow worse than McCain's ties to the RNC. I don't blame her (or any other person whose name isn't George W. Bush) for the War in Iraq.

If she's the nominee, I'm going to work my butt off for her. I'm just concerned that we might be digging ourselves into a hole that too deep to crawl out.

But political races aren't static and it's unlikely he will be the nominee...All candidates have unique challenges...John Kennedy was the most gifted politicians of the twentieth century and he barely beat Richard Nixon and couldn't get a majority of votes in what was for all intents and purposes a two man race...

Remember Howard Dean at this time four years ago. The nomination was sewn up. The primaries were a formality. And John Kerry was deader than disco.

Key Factor: Among voters who have expressed a "second choice" for a nominee, Edwards is far and away the favorite. As others drop out, Edwards will likely be the beneficiary. Combine that with 15-20% undecided, and you have a significant voting bloc that hasn't been heard from yet.

She does better in OH, NM, KY, MS and FL than Obama against the Republicans:


http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=dc72cc9a-62a3-4053-adcd-a9cea3992c72

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=09c3361e-ab99-45ed-b520-0b2c6c8942b3

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=8d04025f-3b99-41fd-b488-a470924222b1

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=63da605b-ad78-4d68-b226-881aa43f3909

One self-described Republican who didn't vote for Bush in 2004 is ready to vote for many of the Democratic candidates in 2008--except for Mrs. Clinton. I haven't heard of anyone in my immediate circle of friends (this is Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and Libertarians) who plans to vote for her. A lot of this has to do with experiences they have had with her as First Lady of Arkansas.

She is (at least this week) getting a plurality of support in Democratic polling nationwide.

All the Exit Polls in Florida in 2000 showed Gore won. The Exit Polls in Ohio in 2004 showed the Kerry won.

I trust polls more than I trust politicians.

argument. I happen to agree with you, but for different reasons. Viscerally,to name one. However, I won't go into the other reasons I agree with you, or why I think nominating HRC would be a total disaster. Neither of us will change anyone's mind on THIS board. Her supporters are dug in, entrenched with their talking points and personal attacks and smears.. as you will see. My advise to you: This argument will work well in the general public - among people who need to know why they should vote for someone other than HRC in the primaries. Start a grassroots effort in your own neighborhood, in your own town, or workplace, to educate people not only on why not to vote for HRC, but why TO vote for Candidate X. Give them a viable alternative and make all the same points you made here. You have a way with words, a talent for expression.. use it well !! And thank you. :hi:

Bill Clinton, Dec 14, Charlie Rose

And that is why Iraq has fallen out of the headlines. And that is why the Clintons should not be in the White House. They would happily support this war if we were "winning".

On the morning of March 20, 2003, there was one (and only one) Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. The sole person responsible for this debacle and the deaths of nearly 4,000 American solidiers is George Walker Bush. No other person on Earth is authorized to send U.S. troops into combat, and I am sick to death of hearing Democrats, in a desire to make another Democrat look bad, say that "So-And-So is just as responsible for the War" because they voted for the resolution.

Read the fucking resolution, would you? It confirmed the President's the authority to use force (which he already had under the War Powers Act) to deal with an actual threat posed by Iraq or to support the UN Security Council. No, there wasn't a threat. No, there wasn't an affirmative vote by the Security Council to use force. Bush lied -- it wasn't the first or the last time.

Here's what Hillary said in her speech when she voted for the Resolution: "My vote is not...a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

She was taking a chance on voting for the Resolution and she knew it (she says so elsewhere in her floor speech). Her only mistake in judgement was in not assuming that this Administration would use a well-intentioned show of support and make it a figleaf of legitimacy to invade a nearly helpless foreign country. That's a mistake a lot of people made back then, and not all of them were in the Senate.

But for the love of God, this meme that certain Democrats are jointly responsible for the war is allowing the Bush Administration and their conservative backers off the hook. Stop repeating it!

And what Bill Clinton just said on Friday. The Clintons are the architects of the Dem strategy on the Iraq War and there is no doubt in my mind that they are truthfully more in line with Lieberman. Why do you think Dems aren't talking about timelines anymore?

I think you're giving the Clintons far more credit than is due. If you think Bill is some kind of puppet-master controlling the United States Congress, I don't think you've been paying attention to recent history.

I'm not defending the Democratic congressional leadership. I think they've been worse than cowardly in their approach to the Bush Administration -- but I think their motivation is a misguided belief that by being collegial with the White House, they'll somehow increase their majority. They're looking back to Newt Gingrich's showdown with Bill Clinton and how the Big Dawg mopped the floor with the Republican Majority -- and they somehow think that history will repeat itself. It's stupid. It's craven.

And personally I don't think it will work. Democrats running for Congress in 2008 (especially those running for open seats) don't have a "success story" to tell voters based on what the Democratic Majority has achieved in the past year.

It's just so completely foreign from anything the activists or rank and file want, that we can't recognize it as a strategy.

Bill gave Bush a pass on the yellowcake, and now the surge. Hillary was overseas saying "stay the course" in 2003. She fought the timeline as long as she could, until it was clear she had to change to have any chance in the primary. She won't make any real commitment to significant change in Iraq. Then she votes for Kyl/Lieberman. What the hell does it take to get people to see.

Bill and Hillary do not control the Democratic Party. Howard Dean is the Chair, and I'm sure there are days when Howard is certain that HE doesn't control the party either.

I've heard some people (Thom Hartmann among them) observe that there is no such thing as the Democratic Party, just a coalition of interest groups. While I might not go as that far, I think that characterization is more accurate than one that posits a single person (or couple) can control all Democrats.

And I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on her post-invasion stance. The point of my Original Post was that, regardless of everything else, she might not be able to win in November.

any more than any of those Republicans should be, and her war policy is the reason why. And, yes, they absolutely do control the "lieberman" wing of the party. Harry Reid's son is part of Hillary's Nevada campaign. The Clintons have more power than anybody else in the party, certainly more than Howard Dean. Do you hear her leading any of these fights on FISA or habeas or gitmo? No. She leads fights to "stay the course".

Can I assume that you're among the 44% who have no intention to vote for Hillary, even if she is the Democratic nominee? This illustrates another point (which is particularly obvious here on DU) that many Democrats will either a) vote for Hillary but do little or nothing to support her campaign or b) won't vote for her at all.

I know that DU tends to skew reality a little bit, but to the extent that this is true, it does tend to make the hole a little bit deeper in terms of a successful campaign in 2008.

And yes I would be one of those people you're concerned about. Lifelong Dem, 50 years old, happy to support Gore and Kerry, defended the Clintons many times. But disgusted with what has happened on Iraq, and global trade, and know they have been at the root of it. Still, lack of support isn't the reason people shouldn't vote for Hillary. Her policies are.

I voted for Nader in 2000. Now before you go hatin' on me, I was living in Ohio and Gore had given up on the state six weeks before the election. Had things been critical, I would have stayed in the fold, but I saw this as a chance to make a protest vote against the creeping corporatization of the Democratic Party. I was pissed off at NAFTA and MFN for China and Welfare Reform, and so I took the opportunity to vote "no confidence" in the Party.

Which is what concerns me about Hillary in 2008. While I would beg Democrats who don't like her to stay engaged, I can understand why they might sit on their hands and not go to the polls at all on Election Day.

I'm in Oregon and glad I voted for Gore. Somewhere around 6% of the state went for Nader, causing the vote to look artificially close between Bush and Gore. As much as I would have liked to register a protest, the Greens are still just a bit too far left for me to actually give them a vote. I will vote for the Dem candidate. We have a close election to get Smith out, so I can still do lots of local work that will help support Democrats without ever having to push Hillary specifically. Although I expect Oregon will get behind her.

great line.

However the fact remains that there is a Democratic strategy towards the middle East , and it involves permanent presence , lots of troops , and combat missions.

This per Hillary.

If not, then it's not the "Democratic" strategy. It's also not per most of the other Democratic candidates -- granted that depends on how you want to parse the many statements they have made on the subject.

In the September debate in New Hampshire, all the candidates were asked if they would commit to having troops out of Iraq by 2013. Basically, Hillary, Obama and Edwards were in agreement that they would get troops out as soon as possible, provided that events on the ground did not prevent it. The other candidates basically said that would commit to the 2013 deadline.

That's hardly a strategy of permanent presence. According to the http://pewresearch.org/pubs/604/democrats-debate-iraq">article that I sourced, only 9% of Democrats think the troops should come out of Iraq in less than one year, and only 38% think they should come out in less than two years.

My point here is that it isn't a clear-cut, Hillary-Will-Keep-Us-In-Iraq Issue.