Some Democrats Fear Voter Hillary Clinton Backlash
The news stories, pundits and even some of her longtime political critics are noting the seemingly inexorable political advance of Senator Hillary Clinton towards the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination — but behind the scenes there is growing Democratic nervousness, the AP reports:
Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.
They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party’s standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.
In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.
Not a good omen. And:
“I’m not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag” on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.
Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton’s political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator’s campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination — despite privately held fears.
The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.
A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.
There’s a lot more of the same in the article, which also notes that Ms. Clinton’s campaign works hard to share all info suggesting that she is the inevitable nominee and a strong candidate. But then there’s this:
“All the negatives on her are out,” said Clinton’s pollster and strategist Mark Penn. “There is a phenomena with Hillary, because she is the front-runner and because she’s been battling Republicans for so long, her unfavorability (rating) looks higher than what they will eventually be after the nomination and through the general election.”
What the Clinton campaign doesn’t say is that her edge over potential Republican candidates is much smaller than it should be, given the wide lead the Democratic Party holds over the GOP in generic polling.
And that’s the crux of it.
Clinton may be the candidate who seems to be building national support. Of all the Democratic candidates, she may be the one in terms of performance in debates who is showing the most “growth” in terms of her ability as a candidate. But she may be the one who could prove to the biggest drag on other Democrats who are running for office.
Her campaign clearly is aware of this perception — and the AP article now shoves it into the public spotlight — so look for it to start to try and address this issue and soothe Democrats’ fears.
But Republicans are clearly salivating when it comes to a Clinton candidacy and this story suggests it isn’t all a matter of being locked into old preceptions.
A cautionary note comes from Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb:
The current RealClearPolitics.com rolling average of the major public polls shows Clinton slightly ahead of both Giuliani and McCain. In fact, RCP shows all major Democratic candidates (Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards) beating all major Republican candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson).
The public’s assessment of Clinton does not appear to have changed. According to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 44 percent of the electorate has a positive view of her, while 39 percent has a negative one. That’s not much different from the assessment in January 2000, which was 43 percent positive to 37 percent negative.
However, the country appears warming, at least slightly, to the idea of her as president, at least compared with the Republican alternatives.
The bet here remains that the country will vote to end the U.S. military engagement in Iraq, even if that means returning the Clintons to the White House.
11 Responses to “Some Democrats Fear Voter Hillary Clinton Backlash”
I’m not a Hillary fan by any means (I’m not anyone’s fan at this point so far out from the primaries) but this line struck me:
“…even if that means returning the Clintons to the White House.”
Because Bill was such an unpopular president? Please – go back and look at his poll numbers. They were respectable throughout his two terms (including Lewinsky) and Bush has managed to make most Americans wish for the “good ole days” of the 90′s.
The idea that Clinton was unpopular (or even that his impeachment was popular) is simply a revisionist rightwing talking point. Hillary is perceived negatively by the ranting right but main-stream American can easily be swayed by a professional and competently run campaign.
Hillary is not just perceived negatively by the “ranting right” Ejoiner, plenty of us who would usually not blink at voting democratic loath the idea of her as the candidate. To me she’s a power-hungry shark, willing to do or say ANYTHING in order to be elected, lacking in personal principles. Loved Bill, not too keen on Hillary. To me she is the Democrat McCain, and I see her as the only Democrat candidate (amongst the top three) that could actually LOSE the election. If Obama or even Edwards got the candidacy, they would probably win handily. Clinton would energize Republicans to vote and discourage many Democrats from voting. Hell, if it came down to her or Rudy, I’d consider voting Republican myself.
Interestingly the GOP seems to have the opposite problem than the dems. The candidate that could face a very tough time in nominations is actually their best bet at winning nationally.
Lynx, I agree with you on how people see Hillary. I disagree with you on the Republican perception of Edwards. Edwards appears to Republicans to be as big a phony as Romney seems to Democrats.
Hillary comes across as more centrist than the other popular candidates, but at the same time she comes across as really polarizing. I am not exactly sure how she does that. I would be very reluctant to vote for her. I am afraid that in her attempt to appease the most voters, she may not end the war in Iraq quickly enough and may abuse some of the power grabs of the executive created by George W. Bush.
Lynx – I agree with your personal take on Mrs. C. and I’m not inclined to vote for her yet but I’ve talked to several Republican voters (like my brother-in-law) who just swear a Hillary nomination will hand the WH to the them in ’08 because everyone hates the Clinton family so much. The poll numbers have never reflected the intense animosity for the family that the rightwing has been stewing in for a decade now.
Its just irritating to see media outlets still pedaling the untrue tripe that the Clinton’s were unpopular while in office.
I think that Lynx’s take is pretty close. Not so sure about an Obama victory but I think that Edwards could beat Romney or Giuliani (at this point the two Republicans most likely to get the nod).
I tend to agree with Lynx on this one. There isn’t a chance that I’ll vote for Hillary next November, and I’m hardly “rightwing” (although I do occasionally rant).
Come to think of it, I don’t think there’s a chance that anybody will vote for Hillary next November considering that the election isn’t until November ’08.
i’ll vote her next november, but i won’t vote for her in ’08!
Don’t forget Fred Thompson. I’m not sold that he’ll end up with the nomination, but he certainly has some of the Bushites in his corner, especially here in the South. I think he’d get destroyed in the general election because he has no plan for the future, is a neocon on foreign policy, and is lazy. He’s a cipher, but so was George W. Bush to a large extent; except Bush had a executive experience in Texas and at least pretended to offer a different message in 2000.
People have to realize how much a Giuliani nomination will alienate the GOP base. Christian conservatives are the ones who do all the volunteering. Even if Hillary is on the other side, they will not put in the time or effort to vote for Giuliani. These aren’t the people drawn to Giuliani for his authoritarianism (rednecks might find it appealing but conservative Christians see his overall package as no better than Hillary). Conservative Christians will still vote for Rudy over Hillary, but they won’t come out in droves like they did for one of their own – George. W. Bush. I could see Hillary actually winning in West Virginia and Arkansas over Rudy, and certainly in Ohio and Florida. As long as Hillary can keep up the momentum of Dems in the West (CO, NM, NV) then she’ll win the general election easily. Downticket will be tougher with her at the top unless the party acts proactively to bolster her centrist credentials.
Hillary is a polarizing figure, otherwise reasonable conservatives go ape over the mention of her name. But then again, as Elrod points out, Giuliani does
not excite the social conservative base. So is it a draw? I do agree that the West could go for Clinton [I live in Colorado]. It could be the choice for VP, on both sides, might tip the scales one way or another.
Why do y’all think Hillary is playing the “safe” game with her fake “centrist” stance? It’s so she won’t repel Americans in vast numbers as she did in the previous decade with her radicalism as well as her arrogance, conceit, and poor behavior.
Don’t forget that in the 1990s, while Gingrich polled very far down in popularity (because he repelled many), one person, predictably, polled much worse — Hillary Clinton.
The reason Hillary Clinton has more than a 50% probability of being elected President (for real, this time) isn’t because she appeals to Americans — she still repels real Americans, better Americans, as she always has — but because people are tired of Iraq, tired of the Bush administration, and the GOP offers nothing real as an alternative. (The 2006 elections were a statement against the Congressional GOP as well as against the war in Iraq and the Bush administration.)
Clinton running for President is no surprise to anyone with an IQ above room temperature F (i.e., not one of the surprised-and-thrilled traditional “ignorance bloc” Dim voters). The rest of us knew she was going to run for the position (and hold it, officially, this time) as soon as she chose to “represent” New York as one of “its” Senators.