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
Please we are running against McCain-Huckabee. Die-hard loony conservatives won't vote for McCain. And the only thing that matters is the economy. If it continues to contract, we could run with Kucinich just talking about UFOs and still win. This is overplayed and I'm sick and tired of hearing about it.
The more Obama supporters come up this specious arguments the more I am inclined to vote for Hillary. I may like Obama some but I hate his supporters.
Living in NY, I voted for Nader in 2000. Gore, as much as he is revered now was not more than a Bush double at the time. Then shit really hit the fan for progressives, 9/11/01 happened before my very own eyes, we cheered Bush on as the leader. Sorry, progressives did too. It lasted a year. Then Rovian Blackmail took over the country and to be human is to err, as Hillary Clinton did in 10/02. Even I was believing Bush about Iraq. I worked with photo-journalists, I remember the photos of the gas-bombed Kurds in 1988, the one with the dead father holding out the dead daughter as they were caught by the death cloud, trying to run away. I remember the piles and piles of dead Iranian boys, sent to the war front during the Iran-Iraq War. I got fooled by Bush too, because my heart can't take what Hussein would do. I cannot forgive myself, or Hussein or Bush or Clinton. Should I not forgive Obama as well? He did vote for funding. He did not fillibuster, he was complicit as well, political as well. Why isn't he in the Sudan stopping genocide? Are we all too narcisistic to see our similarities?
Do you remember seeing bodies in trash bags in Kosovo? How about women who were continually raped for days at a time there? Then their throats were slit, and as they were bleeding to death the soldiers poured gasoline on their faces and burned them while they died. Bill Clinton saw that. He acted. Who to forgive?
I think that a great deal of the resistance of so many Clinton supporters to accept the unfortunate Hillary electability calculus is that they feel that the opportunity to elect a woman President in the foreseeable future is slipping through their fingers.
Whether or not Hillary is nominated, I believe that the chance to elect THIS woman is very seriously at risk, because Hillary has not been able to re-invent herself for a very different electoral landscape than the 90s, when Bill Clinton prevailed.
I'm an Obama supporter because I believe that he is the most relevant and most effective insurgency for today, as the Clintons were then.
So, I am far less anti-Clintons than I am anti-losing.
Meaning also that I want as many Clinton supporters as possible to support Obama.
I wonder what effect a non-polarizing, non-baggage-laden, proven-capable, red-state, geography-balancing, charismatic woman would have on an Obama ticket, for present Clinton supporters?
I particularly like Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius, though there are certainly other worthy possibilities.
Seeing them together at her endorsement rally for him was electrifying.
Would such a ticket engage many present Hillary supporters?
Would it jeopardize too many white males that would otherwise vote Democratic with a white male on the ticket?
Even if it ran this risk, would an Obama commitment to a Sibelius enlist even more present Clinton supporters because he is prepared to fight the gender fight too, even at the risk of losing some male support?
All candidates are flawed, including Obama.
But I believe that Hillary may be fatally flawed, and in ways that having Obama on her ticket would not repair.
I also believe that she would undermine an Obama/Clinton ticket for all the same reasons.
This is a hell of a dilemma for candid Clinton supporters.
Is Sibelius a solution?
Centrists usually do quite well, opposite of your thesis.
Apparently it is really hard for Clinton loyalists & enthusiasts to realize that their two wins against the Repubs in the 90s do not matter one twit. It is now 2008, Independents don't want anything to do with the Clintons, and that reality is too hard to swallow. These valued voter class WILL run to McCain if she gets the nomination, to not believe this is folly. What kind of folly? Continual war from lovable war-monger McCain, continued tax cuts for the richest, just one of the main reasons the economy is ruined. Obama does already appeal to these voters, and the hatred for the war, which has devastated our country on all fronts, is greater than residual racism that may be lingering in a white man or woman's heart. The independent voter, in some cases not particularly well-informed politically, has at least GOTTEN it that there's something dreadfully with the SOTU - the professional pollsters who study this for a living have also become convinced that the tendency to NOT vote for a black candidate will be outweighed by a loathing for the war, based on lies, and the need for health care which a Dem Would offer. How the Independents vote decides most races - why, why is that so hard for Clintonistas to accept? Her "experience"? McCain's years on his back will just totally blow that claim away - the Repubs are chomping at the bit to be able to use this simple argument.
A vote for Clinton now IS a vote for McCain for president. And we will all have you to thank for come fall. You'll say, but we Really thought she could beat McCain. Please read a few more in-depth polls, and please try to believe them.
Obama has electability issues of his own...like this one:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/?source=whitelist
Nobody knows with any certainty what will happen in the general election, despite the author of this post. The truth is, that just as the progressive left and young people might stay home for Hillary, older voters who value experience may not vote for Obama. In FL, which is significant because more voters cast their votes there than in Iowa, NH, SC and Nevada combined, Obama had trouble pulling in older voters, Latinos and whites. A lot of these people admire McCain as well. I know many Democrats who have told me they have never considered voting Republican, but would if Obama is the nominee because of his relative inexperience. I hope in the end that this won't happen, but I think Obama has just as many challenges as Hillary. And Obama also potentially suffers from the Dean problem. He is relatively new on the national scene and not really vetted. I remember in the last election, the media was coronating Howard Dean (who had his legions of younger followers), Gore endorsed him, and then the media attacked him, and he imploded. He obviously would have made a better President than Bush, but his lack of campaign experience and more importantly the Republican spin machine ate him up. Will this happen to Obama, who knows? But remember, only the Clintons have defeated the Republicans in Presidential elections in the past 30 years or so. Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore (unfairly) and Kerry all lost to the Republican machine. So maybe the Clintons know something after all.
And don't forget Hillary's reverse coat tails. It would be a disaster for Dems all the way down the ticket.
The third point is the real salient one. With or without McCain, GOP voter turnout will be depressed UNLESS they get a chance to vote against Hillary. That prospect would bring them out in droves.
Take Hillary away from them and they stay home, divided and depressed like the Dems have been for a generation.
I see this the same way. I am one of those "lefties" who cannot forgive the war vote. I will NEVER vote for Hillary. If I am even representative of 1-2% of hardcore Democratic voters....she loses. I do not see how she can win. Not to mention that she does now wear well. People will turn away from her, she somehow "gets under people's skin". If she is the nominee D's will lose. SIMPLE MATH. But, no one is honest enough to say this. What happened to that "electibility" that was the main theme in 2004? Someone with a bully pulpit please scream this to the voters on February 5. HILLARY WILL NOT WIN IN NOVEMBER. Many members of her own party will not even vote for her. Say what you want, she has that ICKY factor that is intangible
This article is trying to scare voters into not picking Hillary on Tuesday, and who knows, they might get away with it. The arguments are crap but fear is an insidious emotion.
The lesson of the last 15 years is that whoever is the Democratic front-runner is the subject of character assassination by the US press. If Obama becomes the Democratic front-runner then the frenzy of media hate will turn on him and he will probably become much less electable than Hillary, who has weathered the storm of lies and distortion very well.
Another thing that looms as the Waterloo of the Hillary Clinton campaign in a General Election bid is President Clinton's signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. I'm certain the Republican contender will bring it up in the Fall before the Election.
The reason that the GLBA is such an IED for the Clinton campaign is because the changes that its passing led to has resulted in the horrible problem that now confronts the Economy. The GLBA dropped the restrictions on Banks in investing depositor's money in securities that had been in place since the Depression Era Glass-Steagall Act was signed into Law by FDR in 1933. The GLBA is the direct reason why CDOs and CMOs became so attractive to Investment Banks. The desire for more access to these risky Debt Instruments is what powered the unregulated Subprime Mortgage Nightmare, and the hyper inflation of the Real Estate market that coincided with it.
To put a fine point on it, Republicans could accurately argue that the signing of the GLBA by President Clinton in 1999 is the direct cause of today's Credit Crisis, and the threat of millions of Americans not only seeing their property values drop, but in the cases of millions of Americans, the reason they are losing their homes.
With the vast majority of Subprime Mortgages resetting in March ... and the fallout from that registering in the Summer ... there will be a lot of Americans who will be in tremendous stress leading up to the General Election and looking for someone to blame ...
William Jefferson Clinton and his White House partner ... Hillary.
Something to consider.
Be afraid, be afraid of the big mean Republicans!
Clinton beat their sorry asses with back to back wins. Winning used to mean something to Democrats.
reading some of these posts is so depressing --what the story says is true and supported by such divergent republicans as David Brooks through Dick Morris ---
How many times last night on any of the cable channels did someone answer the questions "how does McCain solve his conservative lack of support" and the answer was always "Hillary Clinton is the best chance to unite the republican party"
The extreme Jonah Goldberg said on Morning Joe that republicans would vote for a "ham sandwich before they would vote for Hillary Clinton"
If we are serious about taking back the White House this fall - then we have to unite behind Senator Obama
The evidence in incontrovertable
So Hillary people - don't go nuts -- just decide what is more important to you--
Winning the battle?
or
Winning the War?
your choice
I am an Obama supporter but, I don't agree with this article.
As a democratic voter I think the problem for Hillary is something totally different.
She has Bill.
While popular with many democrats, Bill has a tendency to do the outrageous and cannot help but, overshadow her and hug the spotlight. And he brings back the memories of all that was wrong about the Clinton era.
Hillary on her own is fine. Actually she is rather interesting and likable and respected.
The past month has made many democrats reassess feelings towards the Clintons and many are finding now that they prefer Hillary over Bill. There is alot of subconscience anger towards him and longing to get away from the dominance of his era.
I think alot of the anti Hillary rants are because so many don't want to focus it on where it belongs because we've spent so much time defending Bill. But, I honestly think he is the problem. I think Hillary would be dynamic without him and a much more accepted candidate.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
