I know, yet another diary about Clinton being bad news for Democrats. This subject is being discussed to death because of Obama's flier about it and because of his talking points about the Clintons' being poison for the careers of Democratic pols.
First I find this really beyond the pale for a Democrat to use against a fellow Democrat. It's obvious he is using it as a scare tactic to push superdelegates to abandon Clinton and go with him. But it is divisive as hell. Short term tactics that can hurt the party long term.
Okay but many say that he is only stating the obvious truth. The very next election after Bill Clinton was sworn in, 1994, saw Dems lose both houses of congress and many governorships and state houses. And they didn't recover until 2006. Now he is claiming that electing Hillary Clinton might cause down ballot Democrats to lose badly.
I think his premise is weak and flawed.
First I want to analyse the election results from 1994 to 2006 to see if Clinton was such a jinx on the congress. Here is the chart I made from this source - 1994-2006 elections-party numbers in congress
Election year Senate House
Dem Rep Ind Dem Rep Ind
1992 (Clinton elected) 57 43 267 167 1
1994 48 52 204 230 1
1996 45 55 207 226 1
1998 45 55 211 223 2
2000 (Bush elected) 50 50 212 211 1
2002 48 51 1 205 229 2
2004 44 55 1 202 231 1
2006 49 49 2 233 202
In 1992 Clinton was elected and America had a president and congress under one party control for the first time since Carter in 1976-79. The voters expected results. In 1994, after Clinton had been in office for two years, he had raised taxes and cut the budget, courageous achievements but not crowd pleasers, and his healthcare initiative had failed. The voters were angry and they punished the Democrats. This is what Obama is talking about. But in truth it was a return to divided government which is what voters are most comfortable with. One party to hold congress, the opposite party to hold the White House, that's the standard in recent years.
After 1994 the Democrats began to incrementally increase their numbers. By the time Bush was elected in 2000, it was a 50/50 split, which could have been interpreted either as divided government or one party rule. By that fact 2002 should have been a big Dem year as the voters judged Bush unworthy of full power. But instead the GOP regained power in congress. What happened?
9/11 happened. This horror united the country and gave Bush the total support of the nation. It was still dominant in 2004, we had succeeded in Afghanistan in our war against the Taliban and the Iraq war was not yet a festering wound. But by 2006 America had had enough of one party rule again.
So for Obama to hold Clinton responsible for losing congress is to ignore history. If he wins, he will have a Democratic congress as well. But the voters will not give him much time before he has to show results or they will take his congress away. So instead of scapegoating Clinton for losing congress he should take the warning from history. If he is lucky enough to win and have congress in the D column, the voters will hold him, and us, on a very short leash.
Besides, he doesn't need to downgrade the Clintons to win. He has the organization, the money, the charisma, to win this thing outright. He really should return to his promise to stay on higher ground in the primaries and save his slings and arrows for the GOP. Bashing his primary opponent who has won close to 50% of the party is bashing half of his party by proxy.