Huffington follies.
I love the Huffington Post. Celebrities really ought to blog, and a lot of the commentary is terrifically spirited and even insightful. But this post honestly reads like a parody of out-of-touch Left Coast liberalism:
It breaks my heart to think the Democrats might be stupid enough to nominate Hillary. But then again, it doesn't really surprise me. Going down this road should finally finish the job Dem bigwig Bob Shrum has been working toward all these years -- driving the party into political extinction.
...Hillary is the most polarizing political figure of our time -- and that's just among Democrats. I live on the west side of Los Angeles, and we're about as blue state as you can get. My friends are all tree-hugging Prius drivers whose idea of a sexy candidate is Dennis Kucinich...
Even so, only about half my friends say they'd vote for Hillary. Sure, those who love her, love her. But most of us just see a disingenuous, win-at-all costs, me-first, power-hungry flip-flopper. She's Bill without the warmth, charm, charisma or common touch. He even got the good hair. And if Hillary is this divisive among loyal Democrats, just think how she'll play in all those Midwest states where the only guy they hate more than Charles Darwin is Bill Clinton.
Ok, so if Hillary is the "most polarizing" candidate among "loyal Democrats" (the often mislabeled "base" which the writer seem to envision as infinite multiples of Bob Shrum but which is actually composed of union members and other working-class whites, blacks, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, single and working women, urbanites, Jews, seniors and even the occassional Hollywood liberal), how exactly is she going to win the nomination? This isn't 1968; becoming the nominee basically requires winning a plurality, probably very close to a majority of votes cast in multi-state primaries. Bob Shrum (who has retired) does not in fact make the final decision on this one.
The simple answer is that she isn't even close to being the most polarizing candidate among "Democrats", unless by "Democrats" the people who always make this argument essentially mean "me and my friends". In fact, Clinton is by far the most popular major Democrat among the party rank-and-file according to actual surveys of registered Democrats. We don't have to like it. It's a fact that could certainly change. It may not translate into purple-state success. But right now at least it really is a good factual point to start from.
p.s. This post was originally a little meaner than I intended (I try only to be mean to conservatives); I edited it a bit, and no offense to the HuffPo blogger Hayes Jackson. This is just a sore spot of mine.
Update: Neil reminds me of his favourite poll, which has results similar to the one linked above, except that HRC and Edwards are tied as the most popular Dems among Democratic identifiers (Edwards is more popular among the population as a whole, which isn't the point here but could still be evidence that he'd make a better general election choice).
It breaks my heart to think the Democrats might be stupid enough to nominate Hillary. But then again, it doesn't really surprise me. Going down this road should finally finish the job Dem bigwig Bob Shrum has been working toward all these years -- driving the party into political extinction.
...Hillary is the most polarizing political figure of our time -- and that's just among Democrats. I live on the west side of Los Angeles, and we're about as blue state as you can get. My friends are all tree-hugging Prius drivers whose idea of a sexy candidate is Dennis Kucinich...
Even so, only about half my friends say they'd vote for Hillary. Sure, those who love her, love her. But most of us just see a disingenuous, win-at-all costs, me-first, power-hungry flip-flopper. She's Bill without the warmth, charm, charisma or common touch. He even got the good hair. And if Hillary is this divisive among loyal Democrats, just think how she'll play in all those Midwest states where the only guy they hate more than Charles Darwin is Bill Clinton.
Ok, so if Hillary is the "most polarizing" candidate among "loyal Democrats" (the often mislabeled "base" which the writer seem to envision as infinite multiples of Bob Shrum but which is actually composed of union members and other working-class whites, blacks, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, single and working women, urbanites, Jews, seniors and even the occassional Hollywood liberal), how exactly is she going to win the nomination? This isn't 1968; becoming the nominee basically requires winning a plurality, probably very close to a majority of votes cast in multi-state primaries. Bob Shrum (who has retired) does not in fact make the final decision on this one.
The simple answer is that she isn't even close to being the most polarizing candidate among "Democrats", unless by "Democrats" the people who always make this argument essentially mean "me and my friends". In fact, Clinton is by far the most popular major Democrat among the party rank-and-file according to actual surveys of registered Democrats. We don't have to like it. It's a fact that could certainly change. It may not translate into purple-state success. But right now at least it really is a good factual point to start from.
p.s. This post was originally a little meaner than I intended (I try only to be mean to conservatives); I edited it a bit, and no offense to the HuffPo blogger Hayes Jackson. This is just a sore spot of mine.
Update: Neil reminds me of his favourite poll, which has results similar to the one linked above, except that HRC and Edwards are tied as the most popular Dems among Democratic identifiers (Edwards is more popular among the population as a whole, which isn't the point here but could still be evidence that he'd make a better general election choice).
9 Comments:
Seems to me that “popular” is not what those polls show about Hillary. They show she has greater name recognition.
I recognize her name, but I wouldn’t vote for her, even if she ran against Cheney.
Sure, people know her name. And sure, she’s incredibly polarizing.
IMHO.
chuck -- look at the "thermometer" poll I linked to at MyDD. She's far more popular among Democrats than Kerry, Gore or Edwards who have essentially the same level of name recognition. She may be polarizing among the electorate as a whole and I'm even marginally open to the argument that she'll bring back the Nader problem such as it was -- but there's just not much evidence that she's particularly polarizing among rank-and-file Democrats. In another poll in which Dem-leaners were asked who they wouldn't vote for in a primary she came in third out of the four high-name rec Dems.
If those numbers hold and she wins the primary -- and I hope they don't and she doesn't -- it won't be the simple result of a grand conspiracy or "stupidity" on the part of the party establishment. She'll have to squander or her opponents will have to destroy the affection, whether earned or not, that the "base" has for her. If she runs, whichever Dem is going to beat her has their work cut out for them.
Whoops -- I should be more precise; Edwards doesn't quite Hillary-level name recognition, and as Neil the Werewolf likes to point out, if you adjust for that, he'd probably come closer to Hillary in the thermometer poll. He'd still trail her though, and the mean scores of lesser-known Democrats are also lower than HRC's.
Laura,
I think you are failing to take into account the nature of US primaries. The candidate is selected long before most states even vote because early failure dries up campaign money and public support among the pols who want to back a 'winner'. Hillary's name recognition and money make her the odds-on favorite to come out of New Hampshire in the lead, and then the media meme of 'unstoppable' begins.
Also, extremely polarizing figures can win both the primary and the general election (e.g. George W. Bush). If 51% love you and 49% hate you, you both win AND you are terribly polarizing.
IF she fails to win the nomination, I believe it will be because her 'triangulation-centrism-opportunism' bites her. She was the darling of the left wing until recently. Now, many on the left feel betrayed and most of the center doesn't trust her recent conversion, while of course the right thinks she's Evil Incarnate.
Having said all that, calling this fall's elections is a fool's game because 7 months is an eternity in US politics. Calling them 2.5 years in advance is mere fortune-telling.
nightshift:
"IF she fails to win the nomination, I believe it will be because her 'triangulation-centrism-opportunism' bites her." I agree, and so will the "she can't win" argument that somebody like Warner can make against her. That's in part what sunk Howard Dean.
But the fact is, HRC may well win the primary, and she'll do it because she's popular with the Dem rank and file -- whether she's popular on the merits is debatable, but she's turned herself into a much-loved figure. People throw the word "polarizing" around totally subjectively; if my friends and I don't like you, you must be "polarizing". Unlike Dustin, I'm not rooting for her. But if you're going to make a case, even a comedic one like Jackson Hayes is doing, against her, you'd best start from reality.
Thanks, Laura... just to get the actual numbers out here, Hillary leads Edwards in favorability among Democrats who have an opinion by an 86-85 margin. While Edwards and Hillary may have roughly similar name recognition (though Hillary's probably a bit ahead, as you say), the poll shows that lots more people are opinionated about Hillary than Edwards.
I think in the 2004 presidential, the democrats had something like a 10% defection rate, much higher than the republicans. (I remember seeing that on CNN anyway).
HRC _IS_ a polarizing figure in my group of leftish friends. With, say, Edwards, people are all reasonably OK with him. With HRC, it's love or hate.
I would actually have a hard time voting for her, but I'm not sure how my sample would project into the "leftish voting population". Perhaps, this is just my turn to slip into the defection portion of the voting pie.
I've learned in the past that the only way I can be more wrong than making predictions about elections is to make predictions about the economy, so I don't mean to be prescriptive- just to add a different context to the talk.
I've said all along that if Hillary runs, I believe she wins the Democratic nomination. "Polarizing" doesn't mean a lack of majority support; it means (I think) that most people feel VERY strongly about you one way or the other; very few would weakly like OR dislike a polarizing figure.
I've also said that she CAN win the general election. She only needs Kerry's states plus either Ohio or Florida, OR both Iowa and New Mexico . That is do-able, especially if this country goes into the tank economically, or Iraq continues to get worse, OR these guys bungle an attack on Iran, or... well, you get the picture. She can win. Whether she SHOULD is a different question. I've never, never liked her for the same reason I don't like McCain now: the naked ambition and craven willingness to do ANYthing at all to be preznit is just too obvious in them both.
Neil, thanks for the extra link; the numbers are pretty similar to the thermometer poll, except Dems are more positive about Edwards (and HRC).
ob -- your point is well taken, and defection rates among Dems are always high. I think it's because many nominal Democrats, particularly in the south, are left-over Dixiecrats rather than because liberals are pickier, but I could be wrong. I guess the thing is that Hillary is polarizing to a part of the base which is overrepresented online and among your (and my) friends. But among traditional Dems she is extremely popular, at least for now.
nightshift -- you're right about what polarizing means. But among polls of Democrats, there just aren't a lot, statistically, that seem to feel strongly negative about her. Maybe as time goes on more among the rank and file will come to share bloggers' perceptions of her. I don't know. I don't hate HRC, but I don't personally trust her on war and peace issues. And I hate to see American politics degenerate into The War of the Roses -- Bushes and Clintons.
Thanks for the comments, guys.
Post a Comment
<< Home