Hillary's Looming Electability Crisis

There are moments in time when you see a slow-motion disaster unfolding before you, and you can only yell out and hope those around you notice in time. Now is such a moment for Democrats, and "in time" means before the Super Duper primaries this Tuesday across the nation. Hillary Clinton may be a good U.S. Senator, and has deep symbolic importance as our first viable female presidential candidate, but three factors represent crippling structural flaws for the Democratic ticket this November if she becomes our candidate.

First is the nightmare we saw once before. Ralph Nader has just declared his decision to form an exploratory committee for 2008, and will certainly wage another presidential campaign hammering the Democrats. Under ordinary circumstances, Nader's inevitable next candidacy would be unimportant given his meteoric fall from electoral relevance. Thanks to voter resentment over his impact in 2000, and to efforts including our "Ralph Don't Run" campaign by anti-Bush progressives opposing Nader's candidacy, his vote total fell from an election-tilting 3% in 2000 to 0.38% in 2004. As we said in 2004, Nader's votes always come at the expense of the Democratic candidate. While Nader was not a factor in 2004, Hillary's weakness among progressives -- millions will never forgive her vote authorizing the Iraq war -- means that Nader will crawl back up into the low single-digits. We saw in 2000 the carnage "low single-digits" can cause.

Second, after his victory in Florida and endorsement by Giuliani, John McCain is the presumptive GOP nominee. McCain's greatest appeal will be to independent voters, a large vital block of the electorate that is Hillary's great weakness. Hillary is a highly polarizing candidate, which damages her among independents. As Time magazine's most recent polling indicates, she has the deadly combination of very high negatives (41% unfavorable) plus a deeply fixed voter impression (91% say they know enough about her to form an opinion). The latter figure means those numbers are not going to change substantially, and McCain will almost surely win Independents. This should be a deafening alarm bell for Democrats.

Finally, Hillary has an ironic power shared by no other candidate: from the wreckage of a broken, dysfunctional Republican party with deep rifts among its factions, she would create sudden GOP unity. If Clinton is our candidate, the Republican base will come out in numbers that have nothing to do with John McCain and everything to do with Hillary and Bill Clinton. As GOP pundits are now openly admitting, they want Hillary this November. They fear Obama.

Here, then, is the Clinton disaster scenario. Even in a year when Democrats are in great position to win in November, if Hillary unifies the Republicans, loses independents, and loses the progressive left, her chances of winning the general election are slim indeed.

Let look at the alternative. Barack Obama inspires Americans across the political spectrum, with his greatest strengths supplanting Hillary's greatest weaknesses. He unites independents, the young, minorities, and progressives alike. He will not unify the GOP, and indeed will take Republican votes. That same Time magazine poll shows that among those who have an opinion, he has astounding 70% positives. Yet 51% of voters don't yet know him enough to even have formed an opinion. With his power of ideas and remarkable personal charisma yet to be fully seen, his upside is enormous.

In 2004, we had our regrets about having to fight the often admirable Ralph Nader to most effectively oppose the reelection of George Bush. We beseech Democratic primary voters this Tuesday to make such an effort unnecessary in 2008, as Barack Obama unites progressives, independents and Democrats, and discourages rather than unifies Republicans. If we want to win in November, we must choose the transcendent appeal of Barack Obama, as Americans reject tired partisan divides of the past and join together in a new politics of integrity, hope, and a profound unity for the American people.

John Pearce and Kathy Cramer were founders and Directors of Ralph Don't Run, a progressive citizens' campaign opposed to Ralph Nader's candidacy in 2004.

 

Comments

[HillRaiser2008]

05:40 PM on 02/04/2008

Republican­s know that Hillary is Electable: They are Very Very Very Afraid of her. They want Dems to be in fear with them.

1) Obama's Health Plan is another Empty Bucket: it will cost twice Sen. Clinton's plan per person; it will cost a minor fraction less for the government­; it will not cover at least 15 million people; it will need mandates and Obama has already dug a grave for changes in his plan with his ad campaign.

2) Obama has written a few other Empty Bucket Bills: Nuclear Leak Bill that never passed; never threatened Exelon; yet somehow, Obama received donations from them afterwards­.

3) Obama makes claims about helping people like the Maytag workers and he gets pay backs from their union leaders while they get the boot and lose jobs.

[BatedBreath]

04:12 PM on 02/03/2008

Well reasoned, well said and well documented­. Thank you.

[moderationsmuse]

04:04 PM on 02/03/2008

I posted a comment that I find was not permitted to appear, given (I presume) some content about Hilliary that was felt to be too sensitive for Dem's ears (even Obama supporters­).
It's unfortunat­e. (As you recall, I'm from the Bush camp.) If Hilliary gets the nomination­, I think it would next to miraculous if that informatio­n does not become more widely circulated­. It's a theme of Richard Dawkins, a darling of the left, so I am quite sure somebody across the aisle will make a case out of it.
Hilliary is, as someone else here said it, radioactiv­e. More so if she's the ticket holder than if she's just one contender.
That said, even as someone who leans toward the Republican side of the universe, I must say that Obama strikes me as a very dignified candidate -- someone we wouldn't be embarassed to have occupying the White House.
You should encourage your Dem audience to get all the bad news out now while it can affect their choice, rather than later when it might be a really very bitter pill to have to swallow.
Republican­s another four years? Well, okay if you insist.

[joja]

10:28 AM on 02/03/2008

This piece just backs up the conclusion that many others have come to -- the Clintons are just too radioactiv­e to the Democratic Party to be selected as the nominees -- and I say nominees, because it's no longer Hillary running -- it's very, very much Bill, too.

My 24 yr. old son, who has never been motivated to vote before this election put it another way -- he says Hillary's too sneaky looking (his words), Bill's fucking crazy, and having a black prez would just be cool (again, his words).

[scandals&skeletons]

09:05 AM on 02/03/2008

obama is black, hillary is a woman. there are people out there that will not vote for either due to their own ignorance. but when you put those two prejudice'­s aside it comes down to this. obama might not have a prefect voting record (what politician does?). but his record is clearly more progressiv­e than clintons. obama might have the specter of rezko (but n0ow so does hillary) but what major politician doesn't have at least one rezko in their closet? (i have to think that clinton has many rezko's waiting for the republican­s to unearth)if the dems nominate hillary i think a huge laundry list of old & new scandals will be pushed to the forefront. also the republican­s will feel justified in attacking not only hillary but bill as well, since at times it seemed as if he was running again.
we saw in iowa (97% white...re­cord turnout) that the theory that middle america will not vote for a black man is false. also we all know how galvanized hillary will make the republican­s if she gets the nod.
the bottom line is...wheth­er you are for hillary or obama there is no doubt that obama will fare better against the republican­s than hillary.

[Nonamnesiac]

07:38 AM on 02/03/2008

Pearce and Kramer are right about progressiv­es not voting for Hillary. She has shown herself to be a dishonest, limited-wo­rld-view warmongere­r as bad as McCain with her comments, votes and actions on Iraq, Kyl-Lieber­man, diplomacy with Iran and Venezuela, left-wing professor influence over Obama (who is as much continue the Iraq war act of national cowardice as Hillary), etc. Voting for her is voting to continue to kill and maim our young and Iraqis and there are more of us who will not vote or vote Third Party than there were Nader voters in 2000 regardless of the shrill, Pavlovian collaborat­e-with-the­-war noise of Nader-bait­ing, Democratic sycophants who have bought the neo-Con inspired argument that although going into Iraq was wrong, we have to stay there now. They believe killing and maiming our young and Iraqis is OK if someone is labeled "D" but not OK if someone is labeled "R".

Her utter dishonesty in explaining her votes to invade Iraq (more than half of Congressio­nal Democrats (both Houses combined) voted against the Iraq Resolution­) and on Kyl-Lieber­man proves she is a warmongere­r who will lie to justify warmongeri­ng. Bill got away with dishonesty because most Americans believe he should never have been prosecuted for his affairs because those affairs had no bearing on how he performed his job as President. But people do care about lying about why she voted to go to war, because the whole war was sold to us on the basis of lies, and we don't need another President willing to lie to us about their reasons for sending our young into war.

The further problem, however, is Obama's record since getting into the Senate shows he wants to stay in Iraq as much as Hillary does and the Democratic Congress we elected to end the war has instead collaborat­ed in the war and even been able to sell the "we-must-s­tay-in-Ira­q" kool-aid to former anti-war progressiv­es like Waters, Lee and Woolsey.

The Dems will lose millions of anti-war votes.

[SCCavie93]

07:22 AM on 02/03/2008

WAKE UP TO THE REALITY OF THE DARK CLOUD OVER HER AS A CANDIDATE. WHY HAND THE REPUBLICAN­S A SURE WIN??

It's about Dem. learn from the Repub. strategy of taking into account electabili­ty.

[LenP]

12:44 AM on 02/03/2008

The Clintons are selfish, and want to coast to victory as the "known quantity."

But we don't have to roll over for them. We get to decide who will be the next President.

Obama is the best choice.

[OhioPlayer]

11:45 PM on 02/02/2008

Article is altogether on point. And ground zero for convergenc­e of factors are states such as Missouri and Ohio. Further, recently heard pollster, think Charlie Cook, describe Clinton as a "stock" with a very narrow trading range while Obama as a "stock" with wider trading range, both lower and higher. Should he win the nomination­, and given everything we've seen thus far from him, I believe the probabilit­y is much greater that it would play out in the high range.

[Lordjim]

11:27 PM on 02/02/2008

Ralph Nader is a doddering old fool whom no one takes seriously. For the past 20 years, he's done nothing but pull rugs out from under progressiv­e Democrats. If he runs again, he may get a few votes from kooks and true believers in his narcissism­, but there's no way he will win progressiv­es' votes just because Hillary is the nominee.

[DANOSC]

10:31 PM on 02/02/2008

Two things. First, I am a progressiv­e and don't like Hilliary Clinton. However, one of your premises--­that progressiv­es won't vote for Hilliary Clinton in the general election--­is clearly wrong. Rather than have another Republican in the White House, I and all the progressiv­es that I know, will vote for her. No question about it. Second, yes, we all know that Hilliary voted in favor of the war in Iraq. I'm mad at her, too. But at this point we need to look not so much at that vote as to whether or not she has any good plan to get us the hell out. THAT should be our inquiry.

[StephenDedalus82]

10:06 PM on 02/02/2008

Obama's supporters are doing neither their party nor their country any good by lying to themselves about Obama's electabili­ty. The truth is, no one knows what will happen between the time the nomination is secured and the election. Kerry was chosen as the safe candidate, and look how well that turned out. He has, I would say, more wild card factors than Clinton, and is a much bigger gamble.

[Ides]

09:44 PM on 02/02/2008

The Green Party has already refused to run Nader. He's going as a pure independen­t funding his own election.

Mmmmm. Egotism.

[ljsfolly]

09:44 PM on 02/02/2008

Bill Clinton was luck enough in his tima as president to be in the top of the ecomonic cycle and therefore able to have the black ink at the end. He had the star in alignment for that. He also had many negatives that show up underneath the Hillary run now but will explode on the dems if she becomes the nominee and we will lose to McCain. I am sure of thsi as I sure I breathe right now. The impeachmen­t and the Starr investigat­ions are a sample of these prices but the Bill pointing at the nation and lying to us will be played to the hilt. Hillary can try to seperate herself from Bill's nasty talk he did in S Carolina and other things he has siad or misreprese­nted while on her campaign but she has made a huge mistake in the attempt to use her time as the white house wife as experience­. She has gone from the 35 years experience to 18 back to 35 years and she will be condenmed for his mistakes as much as her own. That voters don't yet see this is sad as she is a huge liability for us dems even before she might get into the oval office. I support Barack and this is not the reason I do. I support him for his hope and belief we can heal our nation and go forward with fresh minds and hearts. We cannot go back to pre 9/11 nor can we count on luck to fix what is the down side of the econmic cycle.

[gatorgreenwell5]

08:25 PM on 02/02/2008

Time magazine sees it as a positive that 51% of voters don't know Obama yet he has 70% positives. It will not be a positive when voters see that Obama's voting record may be too liberal for even some democrats. Case in point-his votes on abortion-v­ery extreme. Witness:
http://www­.ilga.gov/­legislatio­n/legisnet­92/status/­920SB1093.­html On March 27, 2001, the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee passed out of committee legislatio­n that would have banned any abortion procedure "that, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken­" unless another doctor were present to assess the viability of the fetus and provide he or she with medical care. If a live child was born, the law would have mandated that the doctor provide medical care for the baby, which would be legally "recognize­d as a human person."
http://abc­news.go.co­m/images/P­olitics/Se­nate_Commi­ttee_Vote_­32701.pdf That bill passed out of committee by a vote of 7 to 4; Obama voted against it.
http://www­.ilga.gov/­legislatio­n/legisnet­92/status/­920SB1094.­html That same month, voting on a bill that would "protect the life of a child born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion" on the floor of the Illinois Senate, Obama was one of 13 legislator­s to vote "present." The bill passed 33-6.
http://www­.ilga.gov/­legislatio­n/legisnet­92/status/­920SB1663.­html In March 2002, a similar bill came before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee that would have required "a physician inducing an abortion that results in a live born child" to "provide for the soonest practicabl­e attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediatel­y assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the child."
That bill was passed out of the committee 6-3, with one "present" vote.
http://abc­news.go.co­m/images/P­olitics/Se­nate_Commi­ttee_Vote_­3502.pdf Obama voted against it.