Hillary Clinton Might Be the Least Electable Democrat

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.

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."

This post first appeared on Alternet.

Comments

[midtown]

First intelligent article I've read about the polling numbers in months, and I'm the kind of nerd who checks out the polls referred to in an article. [Clinton has been getting A LOT OF HELP from journos and news orgs who regularly use Mark Penn's polling service.]

Congratulations, Mr. Saperstein. I happen to agree with you whole-heartedly. Good clean fair accurate article. If the nominees are Clinton and Huckabee, I'm writing my choice in.

[taikan]

No doubt Hillary has a lot of negatives which will hamper the Democrats if she is the nominee. However, by treating Obama as essentially the only alternative, Saperstein has fallen into the trap created for the Democrats by the mainstream media, which is controlled by Republicans.
Absent the MSM's early and continual identification of Obama as "the" alternative to Hillary, Democrats would be comparing Hillary to candidates with far more experience and achievements than Hillary, such as Bill Richardson and Joe Biden, rather than a first-term senator with little experience and even less in the way of achievements on either the national or international level. By focusing on Hillary and Obama, and therefore causing the majority of the public to focus only on those two individuals, the MSM has done an excellent job of pushing the Democrats toward nominating a candidate with major electability problems.

[zull2]

The truth is, everyone who can call themselves a "pundit" should have been cognizant enough to notice that a whole lot of people didn't have a clue who Barack Obama was just a few months ago. However, they knew Hillary and so they figured she was the big player and the person to get behind in this election. Those of us who've followed politics more closely take this forgranted­...most started following Obama's career after his famous speech at the DNC in 2004. But the average voter probably didn't even follow the DNC back then. You have to have a lot of spare time on your hands to follow this stuff.

So, over the past few months, the average folks have been learning more and more about Obama. Having Oprah Winfrey and other famous people endorsing him is getting people interested, but what it really means is that folks are sitting down and checking his platform, and seeing how well it agrees with their own opinions and making their decisions. As a result, a lot of the "Well, I do know who Hillary is, so I guess I support her" people are making their final decisions up about whom they want to support, and THAT is why Obama has gained so much ground the past month or so.

[CitizenE]

In primary elections, all of us who are registered Dems will have some critical thinking to do. However, inre Mrs. Clinton's electability, I think anyone who underestimates a Clinton when it comes to getting elected is making a big mistake.
I would like Obama to have more there, there. I wish Edwards had more charisma. I wish they all had the sagacity of Biden, the real time guts Dodd has been showing, and the principles of Kucinich. As someone from the western US, I like Richardson--a Dem with a western perspective, which all the others lack and which has been missing in Dem politics for awhile.
I will not vote for Hillary in the primaries, but I have no doubt she could win the general election and be a far better President than anybody, especially the frontrunners, emerging from the Republican party.

[joja]

Might?

No "might" about it.

She is.

[Jacee]

Obama is our candidate, no doubt. The media machine wants Hillary because they fear Obama the most. Obama will not just win an election he will dismantle the Republican corporate machine. Hillary would win the election and not dismantle the Republican machine. Its that simple.

[lovethesinner]

It's good to hear the uncomfortable truth about politics, that basically it's a popularity contest more than anything.

To ignore this fact is the cause of Republican victories, and it's time to change course.

Just like there's no point in working to end war if the planet is going to burn up first, there's no point in standing up a candidate who has little chance of winning the election.

In auto racing they have a truism: "In order to finish first, first you have to finish. (or, as George Bush would say: "In otherwords­... you can't win the race if your car breaks down before you cross the finish line... heh, heh.)

(god I miss Jon Stewart)

But, besides the fact that Hillary's past seems to work against her, there's also her sex.

Lot's of people like to critisize Obama's chances by bringing up his ethnic identity (well... half of it, at least.) They point to southern history and seem to think that a certain percentage of swing voters are also racists. (a valid, but perhaps misleading fact.)

While racial hatered is a powerfull and destrutive force in America, it's nothing compared to CENTURIES OF MISEGENATION perpetrated against women that cross party lines, and are still practiced in large parts of the world. A woman was recently beheaded and thrown into a garbage bin in Saudi Arabia, as well as forty headless corpses in Iraq with a note saying the women "dressed in the western fashion."

(imagine what they think of Hillary's pantsuits!)

My point is, sexism is a very real and destructive force in society, and with all that has been accomplished in changing that in the modern world, it's still a part of people's decision making process, whether we're willing to admitt it, or not.

[tumblewind]

I have nothing against her. But, the right wing smear machine has bashed her for years. A lot of people believe that spin and believe every word of it. I think all she will do is put another 'fringe lunatic' Republican in the White House. If she makes it too get the general election I will vote for her. But, only because there is no one else to vote for. I quit voting Republican a long time ago they aren't an option anymore. I personally am rooting for Edwards. I will vote for him in state primaries. I think maybe he has a chance of winning expensive hair cut and all.

[ajax2]

Hillary appears to be running a Joe Lieberman Lite campaign. I believe they think they have Democratic faithful over a barrel so they can move to the right for Republican votes. It will fail on both counts. Dems are rigorously attacking her moves to the right, and Repubs are stirring up old misogynist hatreds.

[sonofloud]

Hillary Clinton is by far the most electable Democratic candidate.
At the risk of offending, there is no way this country is going to elect a black president for a long time. A woman has a much better chance.
For some reason no one takes Edwards seriously so he is out.
Who else is there besides these three?
And it would be really nice if the Democrats would stop attacking Hillary and focus their attacks on the Republicans. If you really care about the future, instead of your own personal ambitions, you will support all of your fellow Democrats (except Feinstein) and attack the real enemy...Re­publicans.

[rh654]

Regardless of who the Democrats select - and Hillary is likely a losing proposition in the General, if the Democrats don't win the Whitehouse in 2008 they should just close down shop and go do something else.

I don't see how much more the Republicans can screw up and do everything they can to hand the Democrats a sweep in 2008.

[somersetdem]

Something naturally missing from early polls is the VP factor. Maybe this election will be especially influenced by the choice of running mate.

Obama and a strong on international relations VP - sounds really good to me. Can Clinton select a 2nd who can shore up her perceived weaknesses?

[union79]

Thanks for your logical and hopeful post.

Particularly important is the negative impact HC would have on elections for house and senate seats. To have another four years of a narrow majority in the Senate would be destructive. We need candidates who can get the work of the people done without all the ridiculous, self-serving, road blocking actions this nation has been subjected to during the Republican reign.

The numbers you provided reinforce my belief that while HC, at the moment may be the choice of her party, she is not the favored candidate of the majority of voters that will elect a president in November.

[go4thegold]

Bravo. Great article... It's the feelings I've had for so long... the press is in love with Bill/Hillary and they've ordained her "Commander Tits In Chief" when in reality, she's a nothing who's done nothing. She wouldn't even be a senator if it hadn't been for Guiliani's discovery of his prostate cancer. Let's not forget, being first lady isn't experience­... She didn't even know what her husband was doing in the office... Just ask Monica L.

[ljsfolly]

For me as a Democrat I have always been a faithful voter. If she wins the nomination I would find it almost impossible to vote for her except to keep the republicans now running out. They are a bunch of cracked nuts and people cannot see them honestly because they are not honest guys. I dislike Hil for some reasons as she blows with the wind in Congress but the absolute biggest reason I will never get past is that she failed to read what was the intel on Iraq and she failed to hear those who knew there were no WMDs and voted for the war. Anyone who will listen and not explore the reality and will just not stand up and say I was wrong will never get my vote. I will stay home rather than vote for her as an incomplete voting will not be counted.