« John McCain: Will U.S. Republicans Let Him Save Them? …
Iraqis Look to the Flag … the American and Iranian, but Certainly Not the Iraqi! »
Poll: Public Increasingly Uneasy About Bill Clinton Back In White House
A new poll suggests the public is increasingly uneasy about the idea of former President Bill Clinton back in the White House — and that independent voters are more-and-more turned-off by the idea.
If you look at the large increase in Republicans who now don’t want Bill Clinton back in the White House it’s clear that, if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, the Bill Clinton issue could actually be an issue raised and played out in the campaign. The New York Times‘ lively blog The Caucus reports:
Forty one percent of registered voters told the latest Pew Research Center survey that they disliked the idea of Mr. Clinton back at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, which could happen if his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, is elected president. In October, 34 percent of voters disliked the idea.
The latest survey was conducted between Jan. 30 and Feb. 2, after a couple of weeks of heightened media attention to Mr. Clinton’s increasingly dominant and visible role in his wife’s campaign. Pew surveyed 1,502 adults and the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The poll found that independent voters have become more uncomfortable with the idea. In October, just 35 percent of independents disliked the idea; now, 45 percent dislike it.
Recent elections have been decided by independent “swing” voters. MORE:
Democrats seem to be generally comfortable with bringing Mr. Clinton back. In October, only 10 percent disliked the idea of him back in the White House, and even after his bad week only 12 percent object now. In October 68 percent of Democrats said they actually liked the idea and that number has not changed. So he may still be an asset to his wife, at least in the upcoming Democratic primaries.
This explains the defense of Mr. Clinton by many Democrats who rationalize some of his recent comments the same way Republicans have rationalized some of the statements of and tactics used by Bush administration officials and GOPers over the years.
But here is the kicker:
In a general election, however, the prospect of Mr. Clinton back in the White House would be a bigger burden for her to carry. Republicans never liked the idea. In October, 66 percent said they disliked it; now 80 percent dislike it.
If the numbers show independent voters souring on the idea of four (or eight) more years of Mr. Clinton in the White House after his recent campaign blitz, and you have Republicans whoppingly opposed to him being in the White House, the Clinton campaign will have to have a game-plan ready in advance to deal definitively with this issue.
It can’t win an election just getting the vote of loyal Democrats. It will need to win a substantial chunk of independent voters, plus peel-off some disgruntled Republicans. Arizona Senator John McCain, who at this writing seems to be the Republican front-runner, is still popular with independent voters.
6 Responses to “Poll: Public Increasingly Uneasy About Bill Clinton Back In White House”
Frankly, I feel sorry for Senator Clinton. She is an undeniably intelligent and able person who, had she never met and married Bill Clinton, might have returned to her native Illinois following graduation from law school. It's easy to imagine her following a career path similar to that followed by Barack Obama in Illinois and gaining independent credentials for the presidency.
As it is, she made the same decision which countless women and some men have made in recent decades, putting her own career aspirations on the back burner in order to accomodate a spouse's climb to the top.
The result is that when she ran for the US Senate from New York as a carpetbagger, she had instant cache. She wasn't Hillary Rodham or Hillary Smith, but Hillary Clinton, the former first lady.
But if Bill Clinton gave her instant advantages that her resume wouldn't otherwise confer, Bill Clinton is also among her largest deficiencies. People wonder what the former president will be up to while his wife is serving as president. Will he say or do things to undercut her? Will he be the pit bull he has sometimes been in recent weeks? Or will he, as the recent NYTimes article detailing his seeming role in helping a Canadian businessman who has donated handsomely to both Mr. Clinton's library and foundation to secure a lucrative uranium contract with Kazhakstan, all the while claiming that the country's strong man was a democrat, hurt not only his wife but the US with his broad interpretations of what constitutes propriety and honor?
Quite apart from whatever misgivings people have about Senator Clinton herself, it's no surprise that people are wary of having Bill live in the White House again.
Mark Daniels
I've said here repeatedly and will say it again: she is the ONLY candidate in either party who we've seen actually grown before our eyes in this campaign. She benefit from Bill doing the good (and the dirty) work for her among Democrats, but her campaign is negating her positive qualities as a debater, interview subject on news programs, and speaker by what is now clearly the Bill Clinton issue. This would not really be an issue, except among Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, if BC had simply delivered speeches and advocated the election of his wife. It's due to the tenor and content of his campaigning, plus the fact that in South Carolina exit polls clearly showed a concrete backlash against him. It's a pity, really, because in addition to her historical role, she has truly evolved into an impressive political figure — and her husband is stepping on and clouding positive perceptions which could otherwise spread. There IS an issue: what will we have to endure if he is back in the oval office? After nearly 8 years of Karl Rove divisive politics, are we in for all of THAT again…but with a D in front of the party name? If she loses the nomination a lot will be written about BC's negative impact.
PS: I don't know how to fix typos under this new commenting system…so sorry!
To sort of echo MJDaniels, Clinton does appear to be in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The biggest credential she's touting is experience in the white house as part of the Clinton administration and yet at the same time many people are turned off by the idea of sort of repeating the Clinton administration.
I don't mind Bill so much as Hillary, oh I'll vote Dem in the fall, but I really don't like Hillary from my own lefty Dem point of view, not the Republican mythology. I'm not real fond of Obama, either. In fact I don't like gun banners one iota because I don't trust them with the BOR or the rest of the Constitution. Authoritarianism is what it is whether it's GWB or … whatever Democrat. Oh yeah, I'm very much a Democrat.
Bill Clinton is a liability, and that's particularly bad for Hillary given that she's a liability and repugnant to so many Americans already herself.
Obama is no JFK or Lincoln, despite the hype and silliness about him in that regard (including on this site), but he has one thing in his favor: he is NOT THE CLINTONS, and is the means by which the Clintons can definitely be kept out of the White House (unless they successfully sue to be let in there after they lose the nomination).