Hillary Clinton to (Still!) Get Democratic Nomination Whether We Like It Or Not
I keep saying this will happen and people keep challenging me. But another poll further convinces me.
As you probably saw, Mona was teasing the squares again this afternoon, which inspired me to find this American Research Group poll the Blogs for Bush guy whom Mona linked to was waxing apocalyptic about. Specifically, I wanted to see if he’d glossed over inconvenient data about how independents answered the “Do you believe the United States can win the war in Iraq . . . ?” question. In fact, he had not! There’s no data for independents because ARG was surveying likely primary voters.
But I thought this passage was fascinating:
85% of likely Democratic primary voters voting for Hillary Clinton, 71% of those voting for John Edwards, and 64% of those voting for Barak Obama say they do not believe the United States can win the war in Iraq.
This is stunning. Senator Clinton’s voters give by far the most pessimistic response to the question, even though Senator Clinton herself is the Dem candidate most stubbornly associated with carrying on. That says to me that her voters have made an emotional connection with her candidacy deeper than Clinton’s stand on any given issue, even the one that keeps popping up near the top of everyone’s Most Important list.
Of six states in the survey, Clinton leads the other candidates among women by healthy margins in five of them. Partly because she’s a Clinton, she appears to run better among African-American voters than any other white candidate could likely do against Barack Obama. In the Democratic primary those two advantages ought to be enough for her to win.
I think there’s a passion for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy that’s almost as invisible to the Democratic-Party netroots as Karl Rove’s vote drive among evangelicals was in 2004. Only very occasionally does this passion glimmer into the view of the progressive blogosphere. My claim is basically that the Clinton voters are out there mostly nursing their allegiance quietly, like the classic quiet conservatives keeping their opinion to themselves until they get into the voting booth.
UPDATE: I whack this pinata again. Revised and extended remarks.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 9, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Your part about “Whether We Like It Or Not” compels me to make the following historical observation:
In 1824, the son of John Adams lost the popular vote*. In fact, he even lost the electoral vote. But since the electoral vote winner didn’t have a majority it went to the House, and so the son of John Adams became President.
In 1888, the grandson of William Henry Harrison lost the popular vote. He nonetheless became President.
In 2000, the son of George H.W. Bush lost the popular vote. And even his electoral vote victory was, well, um, it was a cleaner victory than that of Rutherford B. Hayes. The son of George H.W. Bush nonetheless became President.
Every time an immediate family member of a former President** wins a major party’s Presidential nomination, a plurality of the American people opt for somebody else, and yet the Presidential relative gets the office anyway.
It’s not looking good for those of us who don’t believe in dynasties.
*Well, he lost to the extent that a popular vote total could be counted. At least one state didn’t even choose electors by popular vote back then, instead leaving the matter to the legislature.
**The Roosevelts were more distantly related.
Comment by Mona —
May 9, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
Yes Jim, it makes no sense, and like Thoreau, I won’t vote for the woman. I’ll stay home or cast a protest vote for Ron Paul. But then maybe, the Senate should go back GOP if she wins, yet the GOP is sick…god we live in wickedly difficult times.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
May 9, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
I think I’d still have to vote Democratic if Hillary gets the nomination, unless a truly remarkable Republican gets their nomination. Smashing the Republican machine is sitll job one. But I’ve been goaded into donating and helping out with primary politics this year, a first for me.
Comment by ofom —
May 9, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
yes, I would be very unhappy about seeing HRC in the white house, partly for substantive reasons (disagreement with her policies) but more for procedural/structural reasons: the dynasticization of US politics is going to be the eventual death of democracy.
But that’s a slow, slow death compared to the death of democracy that would ensue from letting a Republican anywhere near the reins of power in 2008.
So I’ll hold my nose and vote Clinton, sooner than I’ll vote for anyone with an R.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 9, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
But that’s a slow, slow death compared to the death of democracy that would ensue from letting a Republican anywhere near the reins of power in 2008.
Yeah, I guess we have to hope that if Hillary wins in 2008 we can still hook up the paddles and yell “Clear!” in 2012. If we elect any Republican other than (maybe, just maybe) Chuck Hagel in 2008 (or Ron Paul, but he won’t win, so it’s moot), yeah, we’ll be putting toe tags on American democracy.
But what scares me most about President Hillary is that she makes it acceptable for Jeb to run in 2012 or 2016.
Which makes it acceptable for Chelsea Clinton to run in 2020 or 2024.
Which clears the way for George Prescott Bush around the same time.
I know that I should be more worried about war or socialized medicine, but I suspect that giving small cliques a hereditary lock on power will just exacerbate any policy disaster.
Comment by Nathanael Nerode —
May 9, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
I think we simply shouldn’t make a prediction yet.
This is going to be the most topsy-turvy election season in a generation. I expect that the campaign will be conducted with impeachment proceedings going on (probably for Gonzales first). Things are going to get really, really different, and the way the candidates react to that is going to be key. Someone could simply catch fire and fly to the top. Hillary could do something which causes her to crash and burn.
Barring either happening, she does seem to be the *default* victor at the moment.
Comment by Nell —
May 10, 2007 @ 12:02 am
Senator Clinton’s voters give by far the most pessimistic response to the question, even though Senator Clinton herself is the Dem candidate most stubbornly associated with carrying on. That says to me that her voters have made an emotional connection with her candidacy deeper than Clinton’s stand on any given issue…
It says to me that black voters are a very significant component of HRC’s support. They’ve been the most steadfast opponents of the war since the beginning. And they also make no connection between that issue and her candidacy/presidency. Or between the previous Clinton administration and massive increases in incarceration.
It pains me, but I understand. “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” was just as clearly true of Bush I as it is of the idiot princeling, and Bill was a huge, friendly step forward after the long misery of Reagan-Bush. And the jobs!
Gonna take one hell of a gaffe… {sigh} I loathe her so much.
Comment by de Selby —
May 10, 2007 @ 12:21 am
It may yet turn out that she’s Hagbard Celine in drag.
Of course that might just immanentize the eschaton even worser.
Interesting times.
Comment by Katherine —
May 10, 2007 @ 1:11 am
This rings completely and utterly false to me. I can’t prove it, though.
Comment by Neil the Ethical Werewolf —
May 10, 2007 @ 1:52 am
Should we be confident that all those Hillary supporters actually know Hillary’s position on the war, and that it’s to the right of Obama and Edwards? If they don’t, then her advantage may be particularly short-lived.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
May 10, 2007 @ 8:25 am
Smashing the Republican machine is sitll job one. But I’ve been goaded into donating and helping out with primary politics this year, a first for me.
Just out of curiosity, Bruce, who are you supporting?
Comment by Nell —
May 10, 2007 @ 9:58 am
Katherine, I’d welcome you to muse out loud about it here. I wish I thought Jim were wrong about this.
Certainly my observations aren’t a bit scientific; for one thing, I’m so well known among local Democrats as an anti-HRC-from-the-left activist that my presence affects how people talk about their support for her.
When asked who they’d like to see win the nomination, they say, “Hillary.” Then they glance my way and say, “But I’m just not sure she could be elected.” They’re thinking of two things*: the big chunk of the activist base of the party whose enthusiasm will be severely dampened by having HRC be our candidate, and the foaming-at-the-mouth Hillary-haters who will be motivated to come out to vote against her if she’s the candidate. And an even bigger slice of the electorate, people like Mrs. O: I can feel the vortex of Clinton fatigue sucking me in across the divide of 7 years.
*[Or it could just be that I'm intimidating and obnoxious... ;>]
Comment by Dan —
May 10, 2007 @ 10:05 am
> It says to me that black voters are a very significant component of HRC’s support. They’ve been the most steadfast opponents of the war since the beginning. And they also make no connection between that issue and her candidacy/presidency. Or between the previous Clinton administration and massive increases in incarceration.
Who exactly is your “they” here?
Comment by Jeff in Texas —
May 10, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Nell–
That is the thing about Hillary– she doesn’t excite the Democratic base for all kinds of reasons (she is all about triangulation, she’s pro-war, anti-violent video games, maybe in favor of flag burning laws, in favor of strong executive, etc., etc.), but she motivates the right wingers as if she is the anti-Christ come to earth. I can’t see that she would be the Dems’ best candidate by a long stretch. And fer the love of Christ, can’t we elect someone from some other family than the Clintons and Bushes???
That said, I personally think Obama is an empty suit, and Edwards gets on my nerves for some reason even though I kind of like him in the abstract. I think electing Gore would serve as some sort of good voodoo for our country– kind of a “hey, we fucked up, but we fixed it” to the rest of the world. But he is not in the race, and I don’t know if other people have come around on him like I have.
That said, I will pull the lever (or press the touch screen) for whoever has a D after their name. I can’t vote for a Republican until every last one of the sons of bitches who have enabled Bush are gone, gone.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
May 10, 2007 @ 10:48 am
Kvetch, I haven’t firmly committed yet. I gave to both Edwards and Barack in the last quarter. Both have some features I really like and some I really don’t. If you were to force me to choose today I’d go with Barack because of his urban experience and because I think there’s an opportunity for good non-white candidates this year, but with less of a thrill than I might. Which leads me to my response to Jim, as it happens.
Jim, if it were January 2008 and we had that result, I’d agree with you. But the campaigns started way too early this time. There’s simply too much room for exhaustion and boredom to set in, and I would give you even odds right now that one or maybe even both major parties will have nominees who aren’t currently campaigning.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
May 10, 2007 @ 10:48 am
Kvetch, I haven’t firmly committed yet. I gave to both Edwards and Barack in the last quarter. Both have some features I really like and some I really don’t. If you were to force me to choose today I’d go with Barack because of his urban experience and because I think there’s an opportunity for good non-white candidates this year, but with less of a thrill than I might. Which leads me to my response to Jim, as it happens.
Jim, if it were January 2008 and we had that result, I’d agree with you. But the campaigns started way too early this time. There’s simply too much room for exhaustion and boredom to set in, and I would give you even odds right now that one or maybe even both major parties will have nominees who aren’t currently campaigning.
Comment by vorkosigan1 —
May 10, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Ockham’s Razor suggests that the majority of the Clinton supporters just don’t know what she stands for. It’s not that they support her despite her Iraq–they just don’t know about it.
No need to tie yourself in knots, the way you did “Ooh, ooh, they support her despite her stance–see how strong her support is!!!”
Comment by turkey turkey turkey —
May 10, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
HRC is inevitable at this point. She’s the only Dem challenger acceptable to all the necessary backroom constituencies from AIPAC and its militarist allies to the “unitary executive” dictatorship advocates. People–like Obama and Edwards–who show even the slightest inclination of rethinking the imperial basis of American foreign policy or the terms of the domestic social contract are just flat out not acceptable to the establishment players who decide who stands for office.
On the GOP side, my guess is that they’ll run Giuliani. He’s acceptable to the establishment (read: he’s a warmonger) and he’s sufficiently authoritarian to ring true with the Christianists.
Either way, US democracy (as much as it ever existed in the first place) should be measured up for its toe tags.
Comment by Nell —
May 10, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
@Dan: ‘They’ = black voters in general (wrt attitudes toward the Iraq war) and black voters who support Hillary Clinton for the nomination (wrt sticking with the Clintons despite some of their should-be-unpopular-with-black-voters policies).
Thanks for getting me to clarify, though the above isn’t any smoother than the original post.
Comment by Nell —
May 10, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
@turkey turkey turkey: I’m not seeing even the slightest sign that Obama is rethinking the imperial basis of U.S. foreign policy, and only the slightest signs that Edwards is.
So, to the extent that the process is decided in advance by our imperial overlords, I think either of those guys would prove acceptable should there be primary results that don’t match today’s polls.
Comment by colleen —
May 10, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
I think SNL had it best – we always understood her support of the war to be insincere (I would say practical). Sorry it bothers you all so much.
Background: I’m an advanced degree, professional indy libertarian (small l) female in my 30s. I have no home in either party, but I’ll usually vote third party for whomever promises smaller government unless I forsee a real threat to personal liberties. I voted for Kerry for this reason with extreme reluctance and was depressed about it on voting day. I didn’t want either to win.
I also vote for women whenever possible and no, I’m not happy with the disconnect either, but yes, I really do think it is that important that women are in highly placed positions of power. i.e. I don’t support healthcare as a policy. However, I’m registering to vote in the dem primary in CA to vote for Clinton knowing full well she’ll work for healthcare and many other policies I don’t support. This is a HIGHLY unusual move for me. That’s how deep the silent support goes. I can’t confirm whether I’m one of many or only one of a few.
Obama, Hillary and Guiliani are all more interesting to me than either Gore/Bush or Kerry/Bush. Obama more for age and the shake-up rather than race or policy. Obama getting the nomination over Hillary will remind me of every time an older female with superior experience was passed over for a younger male. It reminds me of black males getting the vote before women. It reminds me of what catty ninnies feminist boomer women can be. In short, it pisses me off on a very deep level.
Still, I’m realistic. I’ll be able to live happily with either Obama, Clinton or Guiliani. I do tire of dems and their little crushes though. Is it really necessary to get your panties in a twist about charisma every. single. time? Must you have a crush on your President? And if you want to talk dynasties, that’s the oldest reason in the book. The King is Related to the Sun God ( i.e. charismatic) and thereby Chosen To Lead.
Comment by Kevin —
May 10, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
I travel and talk about politics with people a lot. I have yet to meet someone who was passionate about Hillary Clinton who didn’t have some professional connection with the Democratic party (and I say that as a Dem). Show me an article w/ Hillary and passion in the same sentence and my first response, frankly, is to wonder how much the person got for it (not saying that’s literally true, but I have difficulty believing that the Clinton campaign hasn’t identified this problem and is working to correct it). This is my first time visiting this blog, btw (on account of the link by Andrew Sullivan).
Comment by dougd —
May 10, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
One thing that I believe factors into this that seperates activists from the broader community is a touch of nostalgia for the decade over which the Clinton’s presided. While there was much not to like for people who have a bit more than the average invested in politics,most folks were a lot happier and certainly felt more secure both physically and financially than they do today.
Dynasties are political brands. Brands are powerful sales tools, The Clinton one has a lot going for it.
Comment by Stephen Cassidy —
May 10, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
The race for the Democratic nomination is wide open. The sense of inevitability of Senator Clinton as the Democratic nominee at the beginning of the year has vanished. Her favorability/unfavorability rating is almost even, the worst of any major Democratic candidate. From the latest polling from Iowa, the number of undecided voters is increasing, support for both Clinton and Edwards has dropped, Obama went up slightly, and support for Richardson and Biden jumped (both are under 10% still).
I am supporting Richardson. Congressman, cabinet secretary, U.N. ambassador, Nobel Peace prize nominee and in his second term as governor of New Mexico, Richardson has been described as a “force of energy,” recognized even by his opponents as a formidable political figure. “You won’t find a person who works harder,” stated Rep. Dan Foley, the Republican whip in the New Mexico House of Representatives, last month.
Of all the Democratic candidates, Richardson possesses the best combination of experience, knowledge, leadership skills and vision to be a great President.
Comment by Peter Haas —
May 10, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Nicely done, Jim!
However, Clinton is not inevitable. But there *are* a lot of relative low-profile
people out there who support her. In my circle of friends, there are a number
of women who want to vote for her primarily because she’s a
woman. I got no problem with that, or her.
(One reason I say she’s not inevitable is that there were a lot
of passionate Ross Perot voters in the summer of ‘91; in fact he was
for a time the poll leader of *all* candidates from both parties, and look
how well that turned out.)
Comment by Jerry —
May 10, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
Are members of the VRWC allowed to post here? If so, here goes:I really and truly hope Hillary gets the nomination. My wife supports Obama. My daughter and mother in law support Edwards. All 3 insist they will vote Rudy over Hillary. If Rudy is not nominated, all three will vote Green Party or some other protest vote. I myself can’t stand Rudy, but will support him over any Dem.
Comment by Judy —
May 10, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Where are these people with all this passion? I’ve a fairly broad group of friends – gay, straight, married, single, 30s/40s, centrists, progressive – in the Chicago area, Florida, San Antonio and the SF Bay Area. I know precisely one person – my sister – who supports Clinton. The rest of us have little to no use for her. Edwards gets the most attention from us with Obama a close second. Also a lot of respect for Richardson – he, not Hillary, is by far the most qualified candidate.
Clinton is a fine Senator and I deeply with she was presently Senate Majority Leader. I do not want her in the White House, though. Maybe it’s the whiff of entitlement or Clinton fatigue. Maybe it’s simply not wanting to listen to her voice. Most of all, it’s an utter lack of vision and inspiration.
If Dianne Feinstein were running, I’d be the first in line to work on her campaign. She’s also far more qualified than Clinton for the job.
Comment by Sheldon —
May 10, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
Senator Hillary Clinton has a huge superiority over her Democratic rivals for all the wrong reasons: the “Clinton” name recognition, her husband’s list of IOUs, a vast political machine and numerous endorsements by powerful Democratic leaders. For all those reasons, Hillary Clinton is likely to get the nomination, even if some of her rivals have better ideas and policies.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
May 10, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
I’ll take a mediocre Democrat, just as long as s/he’s willing to stop the torture, illegal detention, and rampant abuse of rights. I’ve committed to voting for whichever Blue gets offered who will say that. I mean, being willing to stop a war that the strong majority of America wants stopped would be really nice, but it will take a strong, not-yet-announced-yet contender to even make that possible in 2008, so it’s not even a sensible criterion.
But…If I can’t get that, what am I smashing by voting Blue? I know I’m just being the holier-than-thou libertarian by asking such a question, but if Clinton or whomever isn’t willing to declare that s/he won’t be the brutal Decider and that the president of this country mustn’t torture and disappear people after years of revelations about what’s going on, then what am I accomplishing aside from spiting Reds? What am I encouraging or discouraging with my tiny support?
(And this isn’t remotely to bitch at you, Bruce, or discourage your efforts. It’s just that I’d like someone to offer some plausible hope that voting Blue next year will be more meaningful then every time I’ve voted for the damned Libertarian Party.)
Comment by Thoreau —
May 10, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
Eric-
Stuff like this is why I’m convinced that a Dem will win if we’re still in Iraq. It’s not that I think the Dem will necessarily do anything about Iraq, nor do I think there’s any reason why you or I should support the Dem. I am merely predicting that enough other people will support the Dem, because when people are pissed off over a war they tend to vote Dem. Yes, yes, there are plenty of reasons why that’s actually a bad move for an anti-war voter, but that’s what they do. So I stand by my prediction.
Please note that my prediction is merely a prediction and not a recommendation.
Comment by AlanC9 —
May 11, 2007 @ 1:20 am
I meet a fair number of Hillary fans. Some of them are centrists and really do like her on policy grounds. And then there are some who would take any Democrat, really… but just love the thought of stuffing Hillary down the throats of all those red-staters.
Comment by ra103140 —
May 11, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
I agree. I am one of those quiet supporters of hers. I go through all these liberal blogs like huffingtonpost, mydd, and dailykos and all the unfair critism she gets there, motivates me even more to go the polling booth and vote for her on the primary day. I just don’t post on these blogs but many posts on these blogs sure makes me mad.
Comment by Brian —
May 11, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
In 2000, the son of George H.W. Bush lost the popular vote. And even his electoral vote victory was, well, um, it was a cleaner victory than that of Rutherford B. Hayes. The son of George H.W. Bush nonetheless became President.
Just here to defend President Rutherford B. Hayes.
Tilden’s claim to have won the electoral votes of Florida (also LA and SC) was based on a systematic campaign to disenfranchise African-American voters through violence, intimidation, and manipulation of the voter rolls. The bipartisan commission of Supreme Court and other officials was right to return the correct result of a Hayes victory.
Too bad the Supremes weren’t as principled in 2000.
Comment by OGLib —
May 12, 2007 @ 12:17 am
If only Gore were in the mix. But I fear he is (undeserved) damaged goods. I’m not a Hillary fanatic and I’m not a fan of dynasties but of all of the folks in the mix, I think she is the most qualified of the Dem candidates – and perhaps the GOP candidates as well – and would be much less dangerous for our country than any of the GOP’ers (even though she is the most cenrist and hawkish of the Dem options – a fact you would never now if you listened only to the right wing noise machine). Out of that bunch, the one that scares me the most is Giuliani, despite his socially liberally positions. We’re in the mess we’re in now because the guy in the WH is ignorant, disinterested frat boy who likes to play commander guy, backed up by folks who favor an imperial presidency. Replacing him with a much smarter, egotistical, authoritarian jerk, surrounded by sycophantic yes-men, who thinks he could be an even better commander guy would be disastrous for our country. I don’t care if he supports a woman’s right to choose – I don’t fear or see women losing that right. What I fear is an escalation of our military involvement in the ME. If we elect Rudy, that’s what we’ll get…count on it. He thinks he’s the great conqueror of terrorists. It’s a wholly unjustified image but I really think he believes the Rudy/9-11/terrorist killer myth. And to prove himself tougher than Bush, he’ll likely want to bomb Tehran.
I’d take anybody in the Dem field over any Repub…and I’d be happy and comfortable with HRC. Again, not my favorite but the woman is more than qualified and tough enough to handle a hostile GOP or any foreign threat. And like they did during Bill’s years, the left will rally behind Hillary despite the fact that she’s pretty darned moderate. I know I will if she’s the candidate and/or president.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
May 12, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Eric: The Democratic Party has more sheep dreaming of being wolves; the Republican Party has more wolves dreaming of being dragons. If the Democratics regain a lead in more parts of the federal government, they’ll be in a position to do less harm, simply for want of Republicans tugging them on to the next kill zone. This isn’t to say that they’ll invent no atrocities of their own – they managed it with Clinton, after all. But there’s a difference of scale that I regard as worth getting.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
May 14, 2007 @ 10:19 am
Bruce, I just don’t know if it’s scale or opportunity. If I thought it was scale, I’d feel a lot more confident. But, all universal feelings of “Gee, I miss the Clinton days,” aside, I suspect things would have been worse than a lot of people are willing to believe if 9/11 had happened on his watch.
Comment by JerryD —
July 18, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
I am a Democrat and am very passionate about getting Hillary Clinton elected President. In my opinion, Obama and Edwards also have a vision for this country but don’t have the gravitas, ability or track-record to make things happen and happen quickly we needed. Also Senator Clinton, though human, (Iraq vote) won’t jump into volatile situations without extensive research and feedback. Hands-down Hillary has my vote and there are many Dems who are passionate about securing the nomination for Senator Clinton.
Comment by Mike Frazier —
March 28, 2008 @ 7:48 am
Interesting, colleen. I could have written those lines. I’ve never voted for a Democrat for president before, and I’m in my 50’s. But for some reason Hillary resonated with me early, even before she declared (though we all knew she would run). I’ve been convinced all along that we need her at the helm. I think it’s her grit, her toughness, her ruthlessness that appeal to me. We’ll need them against terrorism. McCain’s too old (among other things), Obama too weak and insubstantial.