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

[greejambri]

Everything you say is so true, but unfortunately Hillary is being pushed on us by the DLC, with the help of rabid feminists, and no one is willing to step back and see the disaster that is unfolding. Obama is the ONLY way to take back the WH from the Republicans. Sorry, Clinton supporters, I KNOW the TRUTH hurts.

[RichLiberal]

What have we here? More Obamanalysis of let us make up a story that makes Obama look good and Hillary look bad.
On your 3 points: the Clintons already have a track record of dealing w 3rd party election spoilers. Bill orchestrated Ross Perot to dislodge the incumbent Bush. And Obama will do what when working class Democrats find an alternative with Bloomberg?
2. Florida? As I recall, it's not even a week ago, Hillary outpolled everyone all Democrats and Republicans in Florida. Why do you think all those people went and voted for her? Do you think they are stupid? I suppose you do. Oh well.
3. Yes, she may unite the Republicans. The right wing rich, the anti-abortion nuts, the gay-hating nuts, the religous nuts, the gun nuts, the illegal immigrant nuts, will all get together and have one big hatefest, brought to you live by CNN and MSNBC and the rest of the MSM. What a party it will be. Where will the so-called progressives go? Maybe they will become some form of Ralph Nader-like progressive nuts!

[neworleanslady68]

Do we have evidence that the Republicans really do want to run against Hillary? I'm not disputing it, just curious to find any evidence.

I genuinely don't understand this assumption that McCain wins independents. The guy is a shameless whore! He has sold out to BushCo. and to the right wing. He was one of the Keating Five. I can't think of an issue where he HASN'T been willing to sell himself for votes. How in the living hell does he STILL manage to keep this "straight talk" label? It's a joke, and I am assuming that any skillful Democratic nominee will be able to easily point out this history.

[Roose]

I hope Californians read this article and think about it when they go vote on Tuesday. Most people I know will never vote for HRC because of her vote on Iraq.

In the debate last night she gave us some disjointed explanation of what she voted for but still couldn't take responsibility for that vote. Her talking points just reminded me too much of George Bush.

[Bluesman48]

This post puts the whole thing in a nutshell, people. We need Obama, a fresh cast of characters, a new beginning.

[PaulLoeb]

Every time I write on the election, and I've done it alot, I get a barrage of emails from political progressives saying they'll never vote for Hillary. (I've been arguing for Edwards, then Obama, but always say I'll vote for the last Democrat standing, which I will).

I've inteviewed active Obama supporters, including former Republicans, who will stay home as well. This isn't illusory..­. The right hates Hillary enough to turnout... .and there's enough of a chunk of the left who hates her too, that they'll vote green or stay home. This reflects her enormous negatives in all the polls

Obama expands the Democratic base. Clinton contracts it.

[Jazione]

The points made in this article are completely true.

I do not understand why democrats keep missing the part of the forest where we moderates/­independen­ts/crossov­er Repulicans are standing quietly.

I am a moderate, who changed my registration from Republican to Democrat to vote in Tuesday's primary so that I can vote for Obama. There are many of us.

There are many of us who will not vote for Hillary. I find her type of politicing (akin to something out of the Manchurian Candidate) sickening and she is one of the Worst feminine role models to our young women by putting up with a sham marriage just for her own power and wealth. Clearly, she does NOT stand on her own.

I will never, never, never vote for Hillary and will rally around Romney if I have to to make sure she is not the leader of our country.

I believe that many of us have a this horrible feeling about her (and nothing will change it and in fact much of what has gone on this month just serves to verify all our distaste).


In a close race, we moderates/­independen­t voters will make the difference. Ignore us - right and left wings - at your own cost.

Here is the catch phase: We just won't vote for her. Don't care what anyone says.

Jane
50 - caucasion - female

[ckdogs]

I think Nader is less of a factor than the what the NY Times discussed yesterday, about Bill's business dealings with a guy in Kazakstan. (His name starts with a G) After a joint trip to that country, Mr. G. seemed to own all the uranium, and then he donated hundreds of millions to Bill's library, and other charities. If it's in the Times, the Repubs will surely exploit this stuff big time. Bill's business dealings will be a major issue, and Hillary will be tainted by it.

[OkieMon]

does hill have a background containing documented cocaine use and muslim connections? case closed.

[kramskoi]

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.


------

...truer words have never been spoken...

[itsnotmyfault]

Why is it that Obama has not indicated a willingness to work on the nominees behalf should he not be selected? If they both share so many consequential positions in common, one would think that he would already commit to this for the sake of the country. Instead he is divisively suggesting that his supporters will not support Hillary. If he indicated to his loyal following how important it was for them to support the Democratic nominee, I'm sure his forceful presence could convince them.

The converse in fact might not be the same. I am not convinced that all of Hillary's supporters will readily support a black candidate. I am certain, as Bill Clinton has already indicated, the Clintons will both take a very active roll in the campaign should Obama get the nomination. That may not overcome the pervasive racism that persists in this country.

[Barbwire]

I have been saying this since before she declared her candidacy. She would truly unite the Republicans, not behind their own candidate, but against her.

[StephenDedalus82]

If she loses, she'll lose fighting. Obama will lose no matter what he does, and I seriously doubt he'll do it fighting.

[worldly1]

And in the event she were to win the general, you can kiss goodbye any hope of maintaining, let alone, enlarging the congressional Democratic majorities come the next election.

[moonjumper]

Clinton supporters don't like talking about this. They flippantly cast it aside then go back to sticking their head in the sand.