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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hillary Clinton is electable - but she is a woman, and must overcome male sexist bias. That would indeed be change for this country, but change that is critically needed. She is the most competent and most qualified to be President, and the Democratic nominee.
Code words, like "electible" and "divisive" are Karl Rove spins for "white men don't support women."
Americans are bigger than this petty bias that Republican spin masters like Karl Rove and yourselves are trying to make. Many of "Obama
" supporters are trying to use the same spin as Rove to get "anti-Hillary" votes which are really code words for "anti-female" bias to come and join Obama who is male.
Pay attention, because in the general, the Karl Rove politics will go after Obama using the same prejudice he is trying to spin now on Clinton. Sexism and racism go hand in hand. The same shallow voters who will pick a Black male over a female in the primaries, will pick a White male over a Black male in the general. This is how Republican spin masters are setting up Democrats.
Don't buy it.
Here come the books:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article3276681.ece
I agree that Hillary Clinton will not be able to beat McCain, whereas Obama has a good chance to do so. However, I do question the remarks about Nader having been a "spoiler" (how I dislike that term in a democracy) in the 2000 election. Though I like all of Nader's positions, I did not vote for him in 2000, but I do believe: first, that in a democracy dominated by two corrupt parties, he has a right to run; second, that anyone who votes for Nader probably would not vote for a mainstream candidate from one of the two party machines; and three, 250,000 registered Democrats didn't vote at all in Florida, so it seems the responsibility lies with the Democratic Party for not getting out these votes, rather than blaming Nader for their own ineffectiveness. Let's lay the Nader-as-spoiler myth to rest and concentrate on providing better candidates and a more honest and effective party.
Hillary will not win in November against McCain and here's why: Earmark for campaign donations. McCain is going to eat her alive. Read about it. We all want a woman to be president, but can we please choose one with intergity. I am not going to elect a women who has proven that she can be as stupid as a man - no thanks.
LA Times article:
"Clinton supported basic reforms, but she and other Democratic senators running for president balked at a proposal by Obama that would have required members to disclose their proposed earmark requests, not just those that were enacted into law."
Another instance of Obama's integrity vs. Clinton's (lack of) integrity.
I've said it before and I'll have to say it again:
Nader is a scapegoat. If the Democratic Party nominates an unelectable candidate, that's their own fault.
Has anyone noticed that Bush excites the Demcratic base far more than Hillary excites the Republican base?
Bush just has to say something on TV and Democratic fund raising scores.
Well, I just think you're both wrong. And I've changed my mind from a couple of weeks ago. Watching Clinton campaign and debate, it's clear to me that she can beat any Republican. She's smart, poised, and her campaign machine is ruthless. And if the American public turns out the way it has in the primaries, the only way a Republican is going to win this election is by stealing it.
Hillary or Barack. Sanity '08.
Finally a columnist who gets it! Bravo! This primary season is about finding a candidate who represents each party, BUT also one who is a strong national candidate, because at the end of the day what is most important is which party's candidate will be sworn in the White House in January!
This article points out the reality: people who come out in droves to vote AGAINST Hillary, so why should the Dems nominate her? There is only a negligible difference between her and Obama's positions. Further, when the Dems say they want change, why would they install the Clinton"S" in the White House for a second time? This is a time for transcendental leadership and I can see Obama pulling in WAY more votes (not only among the base of Democratic Party) but from anti-war Independants and Republicans. Obama is a saavy choice but let's see if Dems really get the distinction.
McCAIN IS TOO OLD......DEMENTIA IN REAGAN BY THEN. WAKE UP !!!!
Boys that's blue skying, lemme remind you guys about something:
1: NEVER underestimate the power of the Clintonistas. You think comparing Gore in '00 or Kerry in '04 to her is valid? Really? You are forgetting the Brother Bill Factor. That's goofy.
2: You've zero idea on how Obama will fare against 8 months of Rovian Attack dogs. Admit it-he is Black, and people around this country will find plenty of excuses to NOT vote for a black guy, no matter WHAT they tell the pollsters. Ask Harold Ford...
3: McCain could be Dole '96 all over. Yes even Hilary can beat THAT.
4: Recession. HELLO-? you think the GOP's gonna be able to withstand THAT and Iraq and all-? doesn't matter who they trot out there-Osmond Romney-bot or McStoopy-it's still gonna be a gargantuan albatross round their necks.
5: You could always have a Ron Paul or Other right wing nut decide McCain isn't conservative enough, and form a splinter party/campaign of their own. C'mon guys it does happen.
6: Cease w/ the Obama kool-aid for a while. You've had yer fill, leave yer keys on the bar.
WAKE UP !!! McCAIN IS 72 YEARS OLD, HE IS TOO OLD........IS EVERYONE JUST OUT TO LUNCH?!!!
You're argument is foolish and based on polls that have proven to be unreliable in this election cycle. Further, McCain would make mincemeat of the unseasoned Barack Obama, who can barely hold his own against Senator Clinton. Style might get a candidate through the primary season, substance is what takes them to the Oval Office. While Senator Obama has shown he has style, he has yet to prove that behind his youth and inexperience he has what it takes to be president, a point Senator McCain or any other Republican candidate can easily make and use to eviscerate the candidacy of a neophyte such as Obama.
On the other hand, The Dream Team, would be unbeatable, harnessing the talents of both candidates. Democrats really ought to seriously consider this "team" as a viable possibility.
Halli Casser-Jayne
The CJ Political Report
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com
No problem... the Hill-Billy's will simply put Obama on the ticket as VP. She can ride his coat tails to victory and he gets to be set up for running for presidency in 8 years. Obama as her VP is our only hope to win the White House. She will not win without Obama and Obama cannot win the nomination because the Hill-Billy's have a head-lock on the democratic party that is too great for even a popular person like Obama to overcome.
The one thing about Super Tuesday on which nobody seems to be commenting is turnout. One of the many lessons we should have taken from South Carolina and the other early primaries is the tremendous drawing power of this race. Ninety percent increase in Iowa from 2004; 30 percent in N.H.; 84 percent in S.C. For many Dems, this is the first election that's not about the "lesser of two evils."
If you wonder why pollsters have missed the target this season, it's that their sampling sizes have not taken the dramatic increases in turnouts into consideration.
In my mind, one candidate in particular has played a larger role in creating this condition, and reaping the benefits of it. While Obama still trails in most Super Tuesday polls, polls don't seem to be all that accurate. The only thing I get out of the polls that I think I can rely on is that he is coming on strong and closing gaps just about everywhere. That, coupled with the dramatic rise in turnout and the chronic failure of pollsters to reach the cellphone-only crowd, leads me to this conclusion: Obama's number of victories will surprise you come Wednesday morning.
I know alot of women Democrats who are excited about Hillary and will not vote for Obama under any circumstances.
Although bright and talented, he simply does not have the experience to serve this country well - yet.
These women have said they will vote for the flawed McCain if Hillary is not the Democratic nominee.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
