Will Hillary Doom The Democrats?

The New Republic: Many Fear That A Clinton Nomination Will Hurt Democratic Chances In '08

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Thomas F. Schaller.

---

Even with Barack Obama looking more and more competitive in the fast-approaching Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton remains the prohibitive favorite to win the 2008 Democratic nomination. But that hasn't quieted the grumbling - hell, downright speechifying - from some Democrats that if she were to become the nominee, Clinton would drag down Democratic chances in congressional and local elections in ways that neither of her main opponents (Obama and Senator John Edwards) ever could. "If Hillary comes to the state of Missouri, we can write it off," warned Missouri House Minority Whip Connie Johnson, an Edwards supporter, last October. "I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag," Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of nearby Indiana told the AP in August.

While there are plenty of other reasons not to vote for her, concerns about Clinton's down-ballot drag are overwrought. Though she could have a marginal effect on a few races here and there, our electoral system has become so shock-absorbent that presidential candidates barely have a down-ballet effect anymore. In 2004 George W. Bush posted what by today's lights was a solid win, and yet what coattails did he have? The Republicans made no net gain among governors; they added four U.S. senators (their biggest achievement) and a mere four U.S. house seats; and they lost about five dozen state legislative seats overall and net control of four state legislative chambers. Not since Gary Coleman last donned a tuxedo have we seen coattails this short.

Partly, this is a consequence of states holding their elections in non-presidential cycles. Only 11 states elect their governors in presidential years, and in many states, some or all seats in either state legislative chamber are off the ballot. Meanwhile, the increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering of both national and state legislative districts further limits the ability of presidential candidacies to ramify down-ballot. Finally, because straight party-line voting is on the rise, the performance and approval of presidential candidates is less likely to cause partisan defections in other races. So, whether Hillary Clinton is a greater asset or liability than Edwards or Obama is secondary to the fact that neither she nor they are likely to have much effect on their fellow Democratic office-seekers.

Those who warn about "Clinton drag" point to her poll numbers. As Karl Rove noted in his inaugural online column for Newsweek, "For a front-runner in an open race for the presidency, she has the highest negatives in history." But a closer look shows that, on many measures, she fares no worse and often a bit better than Obama and Edwards. Take the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, which shows that her national favorability rating of 52 percent is statistically identical to Obama's 53 percent and John Edwards' 50. Democrats rate her higher in terms of "leadership" ability (88 percent; Obama, 68 percent; Edwards, 64 percent), though Republicans rate her lower (22 percent, 40 percent and 33 percent, respectively). The case against Clinton is usually pegged to her favorable/unfavorable splits. Typical of this trend is the latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, which shows Clinton with a +3 favorable/unfavorable margin (49 percent to 46 percent), compared to Obama at +16 (50 percent to 34 percent) and Edwards at +11 (46 percent to 35 percent).

In short, while Americans view Clinton about as favorably as they do her two chief rivals, Democrats think she is a better leader, Republicans think she'd make a worse leader, and a greater share of voters who do not approve of her actually disapprove of her - which sounds like a redundancy, but is not when you realize that many voters have neither a favorable nor unfavorable view of Obama or Edwards. If either of them wins the nomination, however, don't doubt for a second that the Republican machine can't or won't ratchet up their negatives later.

Still, is there something unique about Clinton that could put other 2008 Democratic candidates at risk? The strongest claim to that is she's an uncommonly unifying figure - for Republicans and the right. So while the intensity of Clinton hatred may not multiply a voter's vote, it could motivate citizens to engage in other ways, such as donating to Republican candidates, walking precincts, or persuading their friends and co-workers to vote against Clinton and other Democrats. Such activities have the potential to alter the composition of the electorate from the one currently being polled - with potentially damaging ramifications for Democratic candidates in close races.

But at the heart of the Clinton drag thesis is the notion, typified by the comments from the Missouri and Indiana Democrats above, that she will disproportionately hurt Democrats running in red states or red areas of blue states. This is in sharp contrast to Obama, who it seems like everyday benefits from a story about his "red state appeal," his ability to draw in people who typically wouldn't vote Democratic. Let's presume for a moment that Clinton would be a drag. What down-ballot races would she likely affect?

Of the 11 gubernatorial races, three Democrats (Montana's Brian Schweitzer, New Hampshire's John Lynch, West Virginia's Joe Manchin) and three Republicans (North Dakota's John Hoeven, Utah's Jon Huntsman, Vermont's Jim Douglas) are safe incumbents likely to be re-elected no matter what. Contests that could be affected include the re-election bids of Washington Democrat Christine Gregoire, Republicans Matt Blunt of Missouri and Mitch Daniels of Indiana, and the race to replace term-limited Democrat Mike Easley in North Carolina. Blunt's head-to-head numbers against expected Democratic nominee Jay Nixon are probably too lousy to matter, but Washington and Indiana are swing states that might be influenced by the presidential campaigns. So, at worst, Clinton could make it slightly tougher for Democrats to re-elect Gregoire, unseat Daniels, and replace Easley. On that latter count, the nomination of Tar Heel native Edwards might be more helpful.

Turning to the Senate, Democrats Jeanne Shaheen and Mark Warner look solid in New Hampshire and Virginia. The races most likely to be affected by presidential politics included two with endangered Republican incumbents (Norm Coleman in Minnesota, Gordon Smith in Oregon), and two where Republican retirements in Colorado and New Mexico have provided Democrats with great pickup opportunities. In the two southwestern open-seat races, Edwards and Obama might be less helpful down-ballot than Clinton, who enjoys strong support among Hispanics. In the other two, Clinton could cause problems for Democrats in culturally conservative northern Minnesota and eastern Oregon, but probably no more so than Obama - the perceived difference between the two is likely quite small among white rural voters. Again, only Edwards might have some positive impact here. As for U.S. House races, though too numerous to discuss in detail, the wave of Republican retirements -- 10 announced so far in Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey and New Mexico alone -- will turn many of the key races into referenda on the quality of the parties' House, not presidential, nominees.

There is one other key factor to consider: Hillary's support among women - the one demographic that is disbursed evenly across almost every precinct, county, and state in the nation - could even make her a down-ballot asset in 2008, especially if she can turn out under-mobilized, unmarried female voters. But the fact is that neither she nor her main rivals will provide a significant drag or lift for Democratic office-seekers. Pantsuits don't have coattails anyway, so perhaps it is appropriate that a woman could become the first major-party presidential nominee at a time when presidential candidates don't pull many fellow partisans into office with them.

[vastr-wcon]

"Will Hillary Doom The Democrats?"

YES, YES and H*LL YES.

The campaign platform of double-talking Conniving Calculating Cackling Clinton is pathetic. It consists of: Show-Me-The-Money, Say-Whatever-They-Want-To-Hear, Continue-The-Neocon-Wars, Sell-The-Lincoln-Bedroom, and I-Want-A-New-Pair-Of-Hsu''s. There are no depths of depravity to which this moneywhor''e won''t go, including staging questions at public events and robbing the shareholders of InfoUSA.

America needs to do better than Conniving. She is nothing more than Bush-Lite on the neocon wars and many other critical issues. As an advocate for the most un-American piece of legislation ever enacted, the so-called "Patriot" Act, Conniving shows clearly that she will be as lawless, secretive and anti Bill of Rights as DickNBush.

The women that vote for Conniving Calculating Cackling Clinton will, eventually, deeply regret it - after four more years of their children being killed and maimed in the wars that Conniving will continue. In fact, any Dem that supports Conniving will eventually suffer deep "buyer''s remorse", once reality sets in.

Wake up Dems - take the party back from the Loser Faction and nominate somebody who is NOT hated by 50% of the voters, who is NOT a puppet of lobbyists, one that has ethics, honesty, and a commitment to ending the endless NEOCON wars, and somebody who will NOT lose to all major Repug candidates per the Nov 26 Zogby poll. There are many good choices, but Conniving isn''t one of them.

[revbates]

This is really a bad "opinion" piece ... without any real facts to substantiate the "opinions" expresesed in the article. The voters are far more intelligent than Schaller gives them credit for.

[dudzim]

Yes.

For may reasons. It is that simple. She will lose if she is the nominee.


M

[feelfree1]

Both Clintons are now attempting to be opposed to the disgraceful illegal war, even though they were both eager cheerleaders for this criminal debacle up until 1 year ago.

Both Clintons are in the pockets of big corporations and of AIPAC, and do not represent the interests of the U.S. public.

I would vote in favor of prison time for both of them, for their shameless appeasement and complicity with the Bush regime.

[pepperp1]

Like this Rag would care, all these rags do is inflame and distort the record and respect of public officials not of their Party. Hillary Clinton is an excellent Senator and fine honest public servant, period, probably our next president, and will only benefit this country.

[pepperp1]

Like this Rag would care, all these rags do is inflame and distort the record and respect of public officials not of their Party. Hillary Clinton is an excellent Senator and fine honest public servant, period, probably our next president, and will only benefit this country.

[trillion1]

Hillary is our senator and she s*cks! Hasn''t even tried to keep one promise she made to NYers and is a shill for the illegals which 80% of NYers are against. She is the only democrat we will not vote for.

[random_radar]

People either love Clinton or hate her, but there is not much in between. How will that affect the general election?

Normally the rank and file members of a party will come into the fold after the primaries and support the final candidate. But if the candidate is particularly polarizing, there is a tendency for a fraction of the party faithful to defect or just not vote.

This is the problem Clinton will face--her democratic opponents'' supporters are unlikely to come into the tent. Defection and lack of support will erode the Democratic campaign.

The same would be true if Guiliani were the Republican candidate--lots of Republicans simply wouldn''t vote for him because he is too liberal.

Personally, I predict that not only will Romney be the Republican candidate, but that he will beat Clinton and become the next president. Why? He knows how the game is played and he fits the subconscious image that people want for the leader of the nation. No matter what we say, the truth is that America elects tall men with nice hair and chiseled features that fit the image.

[avraamjack]

It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though any may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where torturing people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKK or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKK and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for %u201Cgang stalking%u201D to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22.
.

[codexkills]

Even though independents voted for the Democrats in 2006 because of the unpopular Iraq war, independents will not vote for Hillary in 2008 because the Democrats did not stop the war. Plus, Hillary''s proposals on health care don''t make sense. Why would you criminalize people who don''t buy health insurance? With her mandatory "health insurance for all" program, people who don''t buy health insurance will be fined, and the fines will go straight to the insurance companies. It''s a bizarre redistribution of wealth where the wealth goes straight to corporations.

[rational_1]

Better her dooming the Democrats than the whole country!

[mcvet]

When you look back through history at all the times Conservatives have said things like this it just amazes you. They have always predicted gloom and doom if so and so was put in office or if this person was allowed to run for office. It''s pure bigotry and fear, something we have far to much of in this nation. Hillary will run and Hillary will win. Why? Because American''s, real American''s have NEVER allowed those with week knees to determine who should run the nation. Besides anyone who scares the fascist eliments of the PARTY as much as she does has got to be good. She''ll win and win big in all the Blue states and Ohio, that''s all thats necessary. Sieg Heil Bush!!

[mcvet]

Personally, I predict that not only will Romney be the Republican candidate, but that he will beat Clinton and become the next president. Why? He knows how the game is played and he fits the subconscious image that people want for the leader of the nation. No matter what we say, the truth is that America elects tall men with nice hair and chiseled features that fit the image.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by random_radar at 03:37 PM : Nov 30, 2007
+ report abuse

I wonder what Ike or Harry Truman would say about your assesment. Can you say Madame President? ROFLMAO NONE of the fascist have a prayer... NONE.

[clestes-2009]

Anyone who thinks Hillary is death to democrats is not paying attention to polls.

She consistantly rates at the top of the democratic fields and certainly better than any republican.

It is a myth that she can''t be elected. rep are blowing hot air because they are SCARED POOPLESS as well they should be. In 7 years they have made a mess of everything both domestic and foreign and the voters of both parties and the independants are tired of them!

[Redoubt]

One of the defects in our system of government is how our candidates are strutted out like beauty pageant contestants for the primary and there, we find that instead of roses, we have nothing but a gaggle of cesspool fungus.

Yes, each of the Big Two sends their champions out to slice and dice each other so that by the time they get to face off against the other party, there%u2019s nothing left worth wanting. In the general election, this *** slinging goes even further and if we were inclined to believe only one percent of the negativity spewed, we would send both final candidates directly to jail.

But because we live in a free republic, we hold this process up to the world as if it were a trophy.

And then we wonder why the Iraqis want no part of an American styled democracy?

Right.

So, let%u2019s just be honest: All politicians from any party is a crook. Every last one of them need to be unselected, unelected and deported to Florida for exile.

[richintx]

But she has such contagious laughter.....!

[frb01]

There are some Americans who will not vote for a woman or a black man, and that is a fact that unfortunately still is there. The Democrats cannot risk her already high negatives going even higher. Rudy is running strong, if the train doesn''t get derailed he probably wins. Pundits are underestimating the fact that American''s are fed up, case in point Ron Paul''s fundraising ability. Rudy has capitalized on 9/11 he has also never served in Washington so he doesn''t carry that. We haven''t even considered Huckabee who seems like the kind of guy you would want to share a drink with at a social function. The Dems can lose this thing easily.

[pepperp1]

Dream on Rudy is going down fast, not even Republicans will accept his multiple affairs, marriages and his mis use of tax payer money to fund the Rudy follies NYC had to put up with paying for his girls car service, force the police to drive his girls around like a tax payer expensed taxi services and also pay the salary for a communications Aid in the Mayor office that was also a girlfriend.

Senator Clinton brings Intelligence, Class, Ethics and Leadership to the Democratic Party and actually elevates them from themselves. She is squeaky clean, having the most extensive and exhaustive background check preformed on her every move since birth conduct by rabid partisan prosecutors looking to make her the prosecutors ham sandwich and he did not find a toe stub after spending 66 Million or our tax for this outrageous fraud.

She is absolutely electable and our probable next President and we the People will prosper because of it and protect and fight for our right to elect the next President and have our votes count.

[downtowner97]

Ron Paul passed Thompson and Romney in fundraising yesterday, and will pass Giuliani tomorrow.

[mcvet]

I can just hear all the fascist at this rag grinding their swastika''s together tonight. Talk about CLASS... man did this lady show it today!! Sieg Heil Bush!!

[mcvet]

But she has such contagious laughter.....!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by RichinTX at 06:30 PM : Nov 30, 2007
+ report abus

What is it about you fascist and your dislike for laughter. I''ve always trusted someone who would give me a laugh... a smerk? That''s another thing entirely...and don''t get me started about LYING and KILLING American''s.. Sieg Heil Bush!!

[quatrops]

I haven''t paid ANY attention to the intra-party debates up until now because I think 18 months is far too early to start campaigning. All the early back-and-forth stuff doesn''t teach us a great deal.

But now that we''re less than a year away, there are a couple items I''d like every candidate to deal with and to CLEARLY let us know their position:

1. TORTURE: Is torture ever justified? When? Is "waterboarding" torture?

2. OSAMA BIN LADEN: As CIC, would you be willing to direct our military to make the killing or capture of Bin Laden their #1 priority?

It''s simplistic, I know, but I''m so tired of the neo-cons smoke and mirrors, it would be revealing to see how the candidates would respond to those two simple issues, and to see how much equivocating ensued.

[vilanelle-2009]

Hillarycare won''t cover any American if it doesn''t pass Congress. When universal healthcare is signed into law, it will be the largest expansion of government power since social security passed in 1935. If Democrats in Iowa don''t trust her, how is Hillary going to build a bipartisan majority in Congress to pass her plan?

My firm belief, as a Democrat, is that Hillary Clinton cannot pass universal healthcare.

But let''s get to this "mandate" nonsense. Senator Clinton is arguing that the only way to get every American covered is if you force every American to buy healthcare. Unfortunately, she hasn''t told anybody how she would enforce this mandate. So until she clarifies what exactly she intends to do to enforce this mandate %u2013 for example, whether she is going to fine people %u2013 her attacks on Obama are more about scoring political points than making a real point.

The truth is, Barack Obama''s universal health care plan makes coverage affordable for every single American, he just doesn''t agree with Hillary''s plan to start by forcing everyone to buy insurance they can''t afford.

I think the real question is who can stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and actually make their plan a reality? Barack Obama is in the best position to do that because unlike Senator Clinton, he''s been standing up to the special interests and bringing people together throughout his career.

[nickshulz]

Of course Hillary will do the Party in.
Why hasn''t the Media reported this till now?

This Youtube piece (2min:30 second) has Hillary on tape stone LYING in to an assembled WOMEN"S GROUP in a Senate Meeting room at the time of the Iraq War vote then shows her later spin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dasUm65vrFA

More Importantly, It is the equivalent of George Allens maccaca moment in it that clearly shows her blowing off WOMEN voters voicing concerns BEFORE the Iraq Invasion, getting downright surly, then actually LOSING IT at the end. It has been buried as the Clinton Campaign is actively trying to purge such pieces.

CBS sat on stories before Bush before during and after Bush''s election...And where are we now???
Do you guys even recognize a tip when you see it?
Your ad money won''t last if the country collapses.

[nickshulz]

Of course Hillary will do the Party in.
Why hasn''t the Media reported this till now?

This Youtube piece (2min:30 second) has Hillary on tape stone LYING in to an assembled WOMEN"S GROUP in a Senate Meeting room at the time of the Iraq War vote then shows her later spin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dasUm65vrFA

More Importantly, It is the equivalent of George Allens maccaca moment in it that clearly shows her blowing off WOMEN voters voicing concerns BEFORE the Iraq Invasion, getting downright surly, then actually LOSING IT at the end. It has been buried as the Clinton Campaign is actively trying to purge such pieces.

CBS sat on stories before Bush before during and after Bush''s election...And where are we now???
Do you guys even recognize a tip when you see it?
Your ad money won''t last if the country collapses.

[realpatriot1]

No, she won''t doom the party. She just won''t do as well for the party as Obama or Edwards.

[doctor--o]

Another Clinton is no different than another Bush. Just a different variety of ***.

I''m afraid elections today have become a lot like middle school officer elections - pure name recognition.

God help us.