Hillary, Rove, and Electability -- the Real Numbers

NOTE: I'm the Clinton campaign's Internet Director

There's been lots of discussion in recent days about Hillary's poll numbers and I figured I'd share a batch of links that give perspective on where things stand:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28477 (Excerpt: "A review of Gallup poll data suggests that Hillary Clinton's current high unfavorable ratings are not unprecedented. Other candidates have had similarly high unfavorable ratings at various points in presidential election campaigns in previous years. Two of these candidates -- George W. Bush in 2004 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- went on to win the election. Additionally, Rove's assumptions that Hillary Clinton's candidacy is "fatally flawed" run counter to the historical finding that candidates' images often change, sometimes dramatically, as the campaign progresses.")

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/22/02050/6475 (Jonathan Singer discusses Markos's post about Hillary's strong showing in three red states. Excerpt: "Markos passes on some very interesting polling of registered voters in three Southern states -- one of which that hasn't voted Democratic since 1996, another that hasn't since 1976, and yet another that hasn't since 1964 -- that seriously calls into question the contention by some that Hillary Clinton is not electable in a general election.")

http://georgep.mydd.com/story/2007/8/22/12351/9500 (georgep at MyDD links to Gallup's latest national survey -- with video from Frank Newport analyzing the numbers)

And here's Hillary responding to Rove's attack:

Cross-posted here and here

Follow Peter Daou on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peterdaou

Comments

[fToRrEeEsSt]

The question to me is not if Hillary can win, but do we want her to? Of all the Democratic candidates she is by far the closet thing to a Republican. I am specifically looking at her voting record in the Senate and it far more resembles that of a moderate Republican than any true progressive.

[MPeter]

It is a good question. It seems to me that MSM and the old Democratic establishment wants to force her on us. Consistently we have shown that she does not speak for the brand of politics we stand for. She is so hawkish and untrustworthy, she could make Bush' era seem like a walk in the park.

[nevergiveup]

AND she voted FOR the new bankruptcy law that will certainly punish all the people losing their homes to foreclosure--when they get their tax bill for that McMansion that they walked away from--probably around $35,000 owed to the feds.

WAKE UP PEOPLE--if Corporate America LOVES Hillary, and if MSM polls says she's the winner, then you can be sure Rove and the Republican Thugs have a pan to defeat her soundly.

Hillary is NOT MY GIRL. She's a Hawk who is already talking about the "next war." Bush-lite is not my cup of tea.

[malcontented]

I said essentially the same thing in response to a previous comment, but I'd add that it doesn't seem to be a particularly good idea in an alleged democracy to be setting up political dynasties. If Clinton gets nominated and somehow wins (which I don't see happening), it will mean that either a Bush or Clinton has been at least nominally in control of the executive branch for at least 32 or perhaps 36 years.

There are more than two families in America with people well qualified to lead the country...­in fact there are quite a few with people better qualified. If we're going to limit ourselves to Bushes and Clintons, hell, let's just set up a monarchy and be done with it.

[bigassbelle]

good grief, it we can't afford hillary clinton now, who CAN we afford of this crop of heaven knows how many? does she have failings? of course. do the others? absolutely and, in my view, far worse. hillary clinton is EXACTLY who we need at this time and place in our history and i am a recent convert.

i, too, think the clinton-obama ticket would be unbeatable.

[altohone]

We can't afford anyone that voted for the war in Iraq... not now, not ever.

Failings?
Is that a polite way of dismissing her vote for the war, the MCA, the bankruptcy bill, etc?

We need a change, not more of the same.

[SensibleAmerican]

(I'll make my point at the end of this 'treatise') ...

1992 was a watershed moment in the conservative agenda, a Democrat won! This put a spanner in the spokes of the wheels of the right wing movement which took shape after the success of Roe v. Wade

Since that moment, the entire right wing slime machinery got into high gear: from the politicians, to the brokers, to the radio talk haters to the religious zealots and bigots! The sole aim was to get the Clintons no matter what it took

And it sure took a lot! $40M of the tax payers money and a partisan "independent" council. After all the mud slinging and rantings, all they got was a 'hummer' and a "stained blue dress"! But that was enough to set in the impeachment process, which failed and Clinton left office with high ratings. Today, he is the most beloved and respected ex US official around the World!

15 years of mud slinging will take its toll. Some mud will stick. And THAT is my point! 15 years of unrelenting anti Clinton propaganda will brainwash a certain segment of people. Hillary has high negatives not because of anything she actually did (and I challenge anyone to prove me otherwise) but because of the endless negative propaganda

If people were to look at actual facts and not the hype created by her detractors, the mistruths, the stretched truths, the white and black lies, the insinuations - just the facts, she deserves to lead this Country! To know her is to love her and that is what changed the minds of a lot of Republicans in NY

Her positives will only go up and her negatives have just one way to go ... DOWN!

[altohone]

She actually did vote for the Bush war, the Bush agenda... again and again and again.

There, I proved you wrong.

That's why I won't vote for her.
Couldn't care less about Monica or the GOP slime... just her record of failure.

[Swift2]

Cite some legislation.

[SmackwaterJack]

Get this through your head, I don't want Hillary Clinton forced down my throat by the same MSM that gave us Bu$h, what's so hard to get about that?

Hillary Clinton is an insider, a player, and I don't want the next President to be from that crowd.

We the people need to start dismantling this power structure in our government, yesterday.

FACT is Hillary Clinton is a so-so Senator, she is not among the best, why should I want her as my President? Because she's a nice person? Forget-about-it!

[kempis]

Interestin­g....

I was born and raised in the Deep South, and I like the Democrats' chances to take some Southern states in 08, especially with a Clinton/Obama ticket, which would re-awaken the once-powerful black vote in the South and give white Democrats a reason to think that their votes might actually matter enough for them to go to the polls.

I don't know any numbers, but anecdotally I know that a lot of Southern Democrats don't bother to vote. Like their party, they cede their states to the GOP each year, assuming the "why bother" postion. I think 08 may be different. Much depends on whether the Democrats really work those states.

[zuzuzpetals]

The problem really is that the Democrats and the country can't afford to take the gamble at this most incredibly dangerous point in history.

It's not just that she has high negatives--it's that her negatives are tailor made for the Rove machine to so tabloidize the process that people tune out, turn off. And all coinciding with this moment of direness in the country and in the world.

If Hillary wasn't so hellbent on a Clinton restoration she'd step aside and let a less baggaged candidate deal with the inevitable smear juggernaut.

The right wants her as the candidate. This is very sobering and means her numbers are quite troubling even if it's all happened before.

We can't afford the risk. We need a sure-fire electable candidate.

Haven't you read that Rove decided that Kerry was more beatable than Edwards in 2004 and so they went after Kerry to assure he would become the candidate?

We can't afford her. Not now.

[MrLiberal53]

First, the Republicans had a lot of help in 2000 and 2004, the mainstream media did more than its share to demonize the Democrats. This continues today on Hardball, Tucker Carlson, and Fox News. The way Democrats can win is to attack the unethical, lazy MSM, not to worry about whatever Sen. Clinton's negatives might be, if she wins the nomination.
Second, the best way to deal with the GOP smear is for everyone on this site to fight back. We have to demand fairness and accuracy from the GOP. If the Rove tactics are employed it is imperative for us to make them pay by getting out the vote.
Hillary, according to this psoting, is a bad person because she is ambitious. What politician lacks ambition? And if she was as driven as some of y'all maintain she would not have sat on the sidelines while Bill was attorney general of Arkansas, Governor of Arkansas, a law school professor, and an out of office politician. The point is, Sen. Clinton is a good person, a decent person, and if she can win the nomination she deserves the support of every liberal, progressive, leftist, and Democrat in the US. Just as we will need to support whomever the Democratic nominee happens to be if it isn;t Sen. Clinton.

[slc20]

zuzuzpetals,

you have it SOOOOO right.

Hillary was correct when she said that during the general, whoever was the dem nominee would start getting higher negatives when the repubs start attacking the dem candidate. That's the problem with Hillary. We can't risk nominating someone who's negative numbers already start so high. if her negatives rose by just 10%-15%, she'd lose the majority. It's simple math.

Frankly, i've thought it is selfish and irresponsible for Hillary to even run during an election year as important as this one.

[alkamm]

I agree that the Rove strategy was to build up Kerry by attacking him so he'd be the candidate and his unpopularity among many Vietnam vets would resonate with those who wanted to believe in the Iraq war just as they believed Vietnam was worth so many American lives.
Osama bin Laden pulled a similar public relations trick by warning Americans of a Bush victory. Many Americans were stirred up to vote for Bush by the reverse psychology Osama used to criticize him to ensure suckers would vote opposite of his will.
Similarly, Rove and his merry band of political poisoners foam further at the mouth to run against the high negatives many of us give this craven, ambitious woman.
Hillary and Bill need to stand aside and let Edwards lead the country.

[SmackwaterJack]

Yeah, you got all the answers, riddle me this Mr. Daou.

How many sitting Senators have won the Presidency?

Now, How many sitting Senators with unfavoritable ratings/50% negatives have won the Presidency?

Now, how many women during time of war, that where sitting Senators, with high negitives rating have won the Presidency?

Need I go on, really?

Hillary has a pretty large bankroll eh?

[malcontented]

All good points...b­ut the perhaps we should add that her high negatives aren't a recent phenomenon - they've been pretty consistently above 40% since people first "got to know her" in 1992. Granted, a full 30-35% of that number are raving wingnuts, but there's nothing new about Hillary's high negatives.

[Dap]

What you are saying is that she is a shill, right from day one. I can agree with that, the fall girl if ya will.

[BadgerMan]

I will probably vote for another Democrat in the primary. However, I think that Republicans who wish for Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee do so at their own peril.

[altohone]

Hillary voted for the war.

She still thinks it was the right thing to do with poor execution.

Most of us think it was the wrong thing to do with horrible execution.

The poll numbers you present follow the 50.1% Rove doctrine..­. and are meaningless at this point.
They will change.
Hillary will not.

Hillary wouldn't stand up to the right wing when it counted. She pleads she will now, but defends their framing and exposes herself as ideologically identical.

[Swift2]

She doesn't think any of those things. She voted, like Kerry and Edwards, for the threat of force to get the inspectors back in. (And, like those gentlemen, she was also making a craven bet that they would be seen as "strong on terrorism" if they backed it. Crappy vote. I'm sure there are 33 Democrats or so -- minus Lieberman -- who regret it.)

I guess you have to vote for Kucinich, or Dodd, or Gravel. Okay. I'm not going to impugn any of those people. But I'm not going to vote for them in the primaries.

[altohone]

Any fool that thought we weren't going to war once the authorization passed lives in fantasy land.

Kerry and Edwards were wrong too.
I voted for Dean, the only anti-war choice in 2004... y'know, the guy who was ganged up on by the DLC, GOP and the corporate media to ensure their grip on power.

Hillary said exactly as I commented.
Are you now arguing she doesn't believe the things she has said or are you denying she said them, cuz I can prove you wrong?

And, no, I'm not voting for someone who doesn't stand a chance. I'm voting for Obama, who opposed the war before it started and can win.

[MrLiberal53]

First, Sen. Clinton has said since 2004 that her vote would have been different if President Bush had told the truth.
It is so tiring to read this blather. If you want to disagree with Ms. Clinton try to stick to the facts. Don;t make up stuff or change history to suit your argument.

[joebhed]

Well that was the last war, you know the one she says we SHOULDN'T be worrying about.
What of her vote on the NEXT war?
No thank you, says she and all the Dems.
we do not need nor want our constitutional authority for approval of an invasion or attck on Iran.
Leave it to Bush.
Iran is today's Iraq.
Get your head out.
She is a warmonger, the classic neo-liberal of the day, which is only a slight off-shade of the neo-conservative.
She may get the nod of the DLC party, but she will never get my vote.
For peace.

[dijo]

I believe Hillary's high unfavorable ratings are, if anything, an UNDERESTIMATE of those of us who loathe her. I can't find anyone who likes her...and I am a democrat. In the republican camp, she is not only disliked ... she is despised. No factor will bring out the repub voters more than a HRC nomination.

[Swift2]

Where do you live? In Soviet Berkeley? Since she's far ahead in national polls, I'd beware of anecdotal (none of my friends -- what, do they work for the Obama campaign? -- can stand her) approach. It's very unreliable.

Look, it's completely understandable if you think Hillary doesn't have the right approach, or is too much of a centrist for you. Go and support your candidate and his alternatives. But you have no rational reason for this hatred of her. You ought to look at yourself at why you sound just like Rove when you're talking about her. Why is it, do you think?

And Edwards voted for the war, too. If not voting for that was the criteria, then obviously you're not an Edwards fan.

[Stevelagain]

Hillary does NOT adopt positions. Hillary merely looks at the polls and present situations and positions herself to win public approval.

Meaning Hillary stands for nothing but Hillary.

[SensibleAmerican]

Hillary's negatives are not high relatively and not high because she is the person that her detractors claim she is

15 years of right wing propaganda has taken its toll. She proved them wrong in New York, twice! She will prove them all wrong again!

I look forward to Hillary being sworn in as the 44th President of the US of A!

[malcontented]

I could forgive her being wrong about her vote on the war.

But unfortunately, she ranks the furthest to the right, out of the entire Democratic field, on a whole host of issues. She's DLC to the bone, and we can definitely do better.