Hillary Clinton’s Negatives Surface In Iowa
The scuttlebutt about Iowa is that Senator Barack Obama could win…but on the other hand he could lose.
Or Hillary Clinton could win, or she could lose.
Why? Because their margin of error is slim. But there’s one thing about which the margin of error is not slim: the growing perception that Senator Hillary Clinton now carries some negative baggage that is so notable that TSA may soon demand to inspect it.
Yet, Democrats truly want to win in 2008 so Republicans who are hoping for a bitterly-split party might be wise not to base their election strategy on it. The Philadelphia Inquirer:
A lot of Democrats in this state agree with Jana Linderman and Yvonne Weber.
With Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses less than four weeks away, they’ve made a conscious choice not to support Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And their rejection of the national Democratic front-runner is carefully reasoned and deeply felt.
“I think her politics and her style are very much the same as the Bush White House and the Karl Rove political playbook,” said Linderman, a young lawyer from Cedar Rapids, who’s supporting Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. “As a Democrat, I’m tired of that, of people talking down to me, using political tactics that have been focus-grouped.”
“She’s at the bottom of my list,” said Weber, 53, a schoolteacher from Mason City, who’s undecided. “She has too many corporate connections, and her position on Iran really steamed me. But if she’s the nominee, I’ll be 100 percent behind her.”
Clinton might win the Iowa caucuses; recent polls have her a close second to Obama, within the margin of error. She has assembled a strong political organization and has a committed base. And even if she fails to win Iowa, she’ll still be in a strong position to win the nomination.
The piece quotes a Clinton spokesman as talking about how receptive voters there are, and the turn out to vote campaign. Etc. But it also notes that Clinton is faced with “legions of doubters” within her own party — but they’re making it clear they will support her if she gets the nomination.
A poll published this month by the Des Moines Register found that 30 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers have an unfavorable opinion of the New York senator. Only 13 percent had unfavorable views of former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina; for Obama, the figure was 14 percent.
All of this might turn out to be a fleeting, Iowa-only phenomenon. If not, then the Clinton campaign could have reason for concern down the road – if not in securing the nomination, then in generating enthusiasm come the fall.
Interviews with two dozen Democrats – conducted at political events sponsored by groups not affiliated with any candidate or by candidates other than Clinton – gave voice to those poll numbers.
Some voters expressed concerns about Clinton’s electability, saying they see her as a divisive figure.
“The way the conservative attack machine works, I worry that everything on our agenda would be clouded over if she were the candidate,” said Bryan Tipton, 45, an undecided Democrat from Newton, Iowa, who has dropped Clinton from his own considerations.
Such concerns were evident in early October as well, when a reporter asked similar questions in similar settings. What was new this month was the number of negative comments about Clinton herself.
So Clinton’s biggest concern has been: she is NOT closing the sale. People may be buying, but so far it looks as if they’re getting ready to buy the product holding their breath, hoping it doesn’t prove to be a dud.
This is an opening for the Republicans. And, you can be sure, they will work hard to convince voters that the product is a dud or not as trustworthy as the product they offer.
Clinton’s task therefore becomes threefold. She must (1) win the nomination, (2) continue her apparently-successful efforts to battle her fellow Democrats but not alienate other Democratic voters, (3) work to close the sale — because if she cannot effectively and definitively close it with Democratic voters she is likely to have trouble closing it with independent voters and she will never peel away many Republican voters. It is highly unlikely that either party can win in 2008 by only winning the votes of its base.
4 Responses to “Hillary Clinton’s Negatives Surface In Iowa”
You know, I am well aware Hillary Clinton could be quite harmful to the USA and to Americans if she were elected (her competence is what makes the intelligent critic more concerned than otherwise be the case), but what is it about the on-line farther-left Hillary-bashing that is largely overblown, far too premature?
We know the negatives about her already. She has radical-left roots to her; she is more vicious and destructive than Nixon, and is more obscessed with secrecy as well as power than Cheney. But she’s the likely nominee as well as likely next President. Is the bashing we see simply a case of the farther-left cyber-space blogger-blather equivalent of the very frustrated, angry, and childish Democratic left wing that demands more “spine” (in fact, troublemaking, obstructionism, and repellent goals and actions as far as the rest of America is concerned) in Congress?
Temper, temper, people.
You know, it’s funny — Iowa is seized on as the Great Possibility to Unseat Hillary by the farther-left crowd, while the same crowd decries Iowa as having too much influence and irrelevent to “the real America”; many will note aloud that Iowa and New Hampshire results often do not match later primary results, nor the eventual nomination choice.
Anything to bash someone who puts up a fake “centrist-moderate” mask rather than demand we get our troups of Iraq now! and denying there is any malevolence or misconduct by the poor, sweet, innocent, misunderstood, US-abused little Iranian National Guard. (What’s next, demanding she cheer the destruction of McDonald’s and Starbucks stores during the next anti-globalization “demonstration” and associated opportunistic violence?)
The Pew reports on Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina also include nationwide figures.
Be aware that while Democrats favor concentration on issues rather than electability as the primary strategy for judging candidates (71% to 24%), at election time all it’s going to take for many to change their strategic priorities is to remember the last act or statement by Bush. “First, remove the GOP!”
Likely Democratic voters in the entire USA favor Hillary Clinton at 48% of the total. (Let’s not see a full-screen elation at her not getting fifty per cent.) Obama comes in second at 22%.
Clinton is absolutely disfavored by only 9% of the likely Dem US electorate. Obama is right behind her at 8%.
Most-electable percentages in the USA are 62% for Clinton, 12% for Obama, and 11% for Edwards.
(Most-electable percentages in Iowa are 48% for Clinton, 18% for Obama, and 15% for Edwards. Again, let’s not see another full-screen elation to start a new discussion because she’s below 50%.)
Hillary has a truck load of negatives, probably the biggest of which is her naked ambition. But she has the money, she has the machine, and she won’t be the first candidate to win because the voters held their noses and pulled the lever. The only way she won’t be the nominee is if she drops out, and she knows that in the end, even the far left will support her because it’s her, or another Republican administration.
or another Republican administration.
I asked a question on another post…why they are so afraid of the Republicans pandering to the Religious base and they offered a few lame excuses but If the GOP throws out Rudi against Hillary you now have a RINO liberal vs a moderate Liberal and this could well spell another 4 years of GOP rule.
Rudi could very well pull a lot of traditional democratic voters along with the right who hold their noses and pull the lever. Rudi is the only man in the race that can beat Hillary. It is why the far left loons are screaming so loudly.
In truth they are not afraid of Christians. Those screaming the loudest are those afraid of 4 more years of ANY GOP rule. Any at all. Even by a RINO Liberal.