While Clinton (44%) remains far head of Barack Obama (24%) and John Edwards (12%) among Democratic voters in this latest national poll (we can debate the validity of national polls during primary season in another diary), she trails both of her opponents in head-to-head match-ups with leading Republican contenders among all voters polled.
And, in fact, Clinton particularly trails her two rivals among independents voters, causing her to incur larger head-to-head deficits against Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, and nearly par head-to-head results versus Giuliani.
From the Newsweek poll story:
Still, Obama and Edwards both run significantly stronger than Clinton among independents. For example, in a head-to-head matchup against Republican contender Fred Thompson (who commands just 15 percent of GOP support), Clinton attracts 47 percent of the independent vote. Both Obama (56 percent) and Edwards (57 percent) draw a majority of the independent vote against the retired senator and "Law & Order" star.
...
But the poll results do somewhat call into question the Democratic frontrunner's electability come next November. Clinton's support tops out at 49 percent in trial heats against Giuliani, Thompson and Romney. Her four-point margin (49 percent to 45 percent) over Thompson and Romney is significantly less than Edwards's and Obama's performance in those head-to-heads. Obama and Edwards both lead Romney by 53 to 37 percent. Edwards leads Thompson 53 to 39 percent; Obama leads him 52 to 39 percent.
So why is Clinton's DLC centrism failing so badly in attracting the very voters the DLC has so often claimed were needed to win elections?
Obama is running on a platform that, could be argued, is more liberal than Clinton's. (At least the perception is that he is more liberal than Clinton.) And Edwards is definitely running to Clinton's left -- her far left on many issues. And yet both Obama and Edwards capture significantly more independent voters than Clinton.
Granted, Clinton carries a lot of baggage tied to years of having right wing talking points directed at her. But the question becomes, why maintain right-leaning (okay, "centrist") positions on things like foreign policy and trade when those to your left are faring better among independent and swing voters who may be looking left as a reaction to Bush?
Interestingly, today's Washington Post - ABC News Poll finds that voters are looking for "change":
Overwhelmingly, Democrats want a new direction, but so do three-quarters of independents and even half of Republicans. Sixty percent of all Americans said they feel strongly that such a change is needed after two terms of the Bush presidency.
Is Clinton's DLC centrism enough change? Current polling of independents indicate it is not.
The worrisome point of all this for Democrats is that Hillary may win the battle, but Democrats could lose the war come November 2008.
If nothing else, this election may put a stake through the heart of the tired DLC election model. Al From and his DLC acolytes are still clinging to a strategy that may have been valid in 1992, post-Reagan, but has grown increasingly irrelevant.
Voters and electoral politics are not static entities. (How else to explain the continuum from FDR to Reagan?) But Clinton and the DLC act like it's still 1992... Because, after all, DLC types forever point to Bill Clinton as their greatest success, not unlike the 45-year-old suburban male in a John Cheever novel who bores friends and neighbors by endlessly recounting the glories of his high school sports exploits.
We as Democrats may learn a very painful lesson come November 2008: Hillary Clinton's centrism is, indeed, a model that should have been retired long ago.
Comments are closed on this story.