Inevitability? Heh. Let's talk non-electability.
Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 07:41:14 AM PDT
Hillary Clinton's campaign has made a great deal of headway in the run up to the primaries with their 'inevitability' meme.
And for months, the polls seemed to swing her way, at least with a broadly uninformed and largely disinteresed public.
But come late October, early November as folks start absorbing the candidate, moving beyond simple name recognition to actual positions and principles, those polls are tightening, and not in a way that's necessarily good for the Clinton camp.
In point of fact, they pretty much make a joke of the whole notion of 'inevitability' and cast a glaring light on the question that I've always had:
Is Hillary Clinton even electable in the General?
My answer has always been a 'no', or more generously, 'barely'. Now we've got some data that hints at why.
Here's Isaac Chotiner quoting Time:
While recent national polls show Clinton matching up well against every potential Republican competitor, the picture looks very different in Republican and swing states. Says a purple-state Congressman who is nervous about holding onto his seat if Clinton is the nominee: "She certainly will get Republicans riled up. They will not only go out and vote against her--they'll stop off at their neighbors' house along the way and drag them to the polls."
A late-October Quinnipiac University survey underscored this point. Nationally, it showed Clinton being edged out by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 45% to 43%, within the margin of error. In red states, however, she ran behind him, 49% to 40%, and she trailed, 47% to 41%, in the purple ones. By comparison, Illinois Senator Barack Obama beat Giuliani by a single percentage point (43% to 42%) nationally but held that same margin in the purple states and came within 6 points (45% to 39%) in the red ones.
Now all polls at this point are fluid, so I don't want to over emphasize this, and many Clinton campaigners will argue the Quinnipac poll is simply an outlier, but I think it's actually an important indicator of where Clinton naturally trends. I'm sure her campaign is hoping the East Coasters will be energized and the Repugs will be chastened and down beat. Many of the Clintonites are convinced that Hillary Clinton will be better both at taking punches from the right and at punching back. Certainly, they're impressed (as, actually, am I) with the quality of the campaign she's run thus far. But what they miss --and what's going to be very difficult to decipher from Washington-- is the effect the candidate herself will have on the electorate. My contention has always been that the likely result is this: she'll depress Coastal votes (certainly among the progressives) and energize the Republican base in the red states. The data above merely outlines the trends that will become dramatically starker should she get the primary nod.
One thing for sure, it ought to put a nail in the 'inevitable meme'--Clinton's not inevitable. Quite frankly, as many here know, I think she's the most unelectable candidate we have this season. As opinions begin to form around the major candidates, watch for how poorly Clinton does in the red states compared to a Republican front runner. Watch how that begins to trend into the Purple states. Those are the numbers that might well spell her defeat in the general, and, potentially, a Democratic defeat should we make the mistake of allowing her to win the primary.
Permalink | 69 comments