Key Campaign Finding: Clinton Winning Electability Issue

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 17:45


Yesterday, in response to Senator Obama's comments about Clinton's high unfavorables, Senator Clinton's campaign was clearly peeved and fired off this missive in response:

"It sounds like Karl Rove is writing Senator Obama's talking points," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. "The reality is that as the campaign now gets under way, Senator Clinton's ratings are improving because Americans are seeing that she has the strength and experience to deliver change."

Wow--this is certainly a response on par with Obama's "Bush-Cheney light" comment three weeks ago. Considering how this is far more aggressive than the Clinton campaign usually reacts to Obama's comments, it certainly makes one wonder if Obama really hit a nerve with the Clinton campaign when he talked about Clinton's unfavorables. This is an issue that other Democrats are starting to discuss as well, even though they tend to do so off the record and with less than specific figures on whether or not Clinton actually would pose a coattail problem from down ticket Democrats. If they start comparing Democrats who openly discuss this issue to Karl Rove, it becomes pretty clear that they do not like the issue discussed in public, and will react harshly against any Democrat who goes on record saying it could pose a problem for Clinton.

The main issue at stake here, I think, is that Hillary Clinton is actually winning the electability issue right now. Considering the regular importance of electability to the Democratic primary, this must be one of the main reasons why she is ahead in national and early state polls. From a CBS poll released today (PDF):

Voters see Obama as less electable than Clinton. 46% think he could win if he is the Democratic nominee, while 62% think Clinton could win. 76% of Democratic primary voters think Clinton can win, as do 54% for Obama.

CAN THEY WIN? (Among registered voters)
Clinton: Yes 62%--29% No
Obama: Yes 46%--39% No

OK, now this all makes a lot more sense. Of course Obama is going to attack Clinton's high unfavorables, because he is losing the crucial electability issue among the Democratic primary electorate by a whopping 22%.  Of course the Clinton campaign is going to respond with real force, because her advantage on this issue is one of the keys to maintaining her advantage in the campaign. Right now, by a gaping margin of 76%-54%, Democrats think Clinton is much more electable than Obama.  In 2004, electability was the main concern for 35-40% of the Democratic primary electorate, meaning that a 22% edge on electability would translate into at least an 8-10% advantage in polls (possibly more). While there is no available evidence on how much of a role electability is playing in Democratic choices this cycle, if there was an 8-10% swing away from Clinton and in Obama's favor in Iowa, New Hampshire and nationally, he would become the frontrunner overnight, as he would lead in money, both early states, and be in a virtual tie nationally.

Now, due to the lack of information on how much electability is on the mind of the Democratic primary electorate in 2007-2008, I am going to avoid making any definite statements as to how much this issue is playing in the campaign. However, given Clinton's current advantage on the issue despite her slightly lower performance than Obama against leading Republicans in head-to-head matchups, I think it is clear why this issue could turn into a huge source of contention among leading campaigns during the fall. It is a fairly obvious point of attack for the Obama campaign, and an obvious point where the Clinton campaign needs to mount a vigorous defense. The nomination campaign could potentially turn on an issue like this, so expect more fireworks down this avenue in the future.

Chris Bowers :: Key Campaign Finding: Clinton Winning Electability Issue

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Nice post (0.00 / 0)
This is what good campaign coverage looks like!

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.

Irritating (0.00 / 0)
I think that the more aggressive response is because democratic voters are going to be on her side in this issue.  This comment is irritating like the edwards argument about electability.

Democrats feel that they are in a position to choose a Democratic leader and don't want to compromise because of Republicans.  Especially not when the Clinton years were generally good.

I was irritated by this argument even when I supported Obama more.


irritating - a good word for it (0.00 / 0)
I agree.  Petty too.

As I've said before, if Obama thinks that just "being Obama" -- and "not being Hillary" -- is enough to bring the country together, he's dead wrong.

Good ideas and sound policy will bring the country together. People rally around leaders with the guts to articulate a clear direction for the county, and the courage to fight for what they believe in.

When Obama starts articulating his vision and starts FIGHTING for what he believes in, especially right now in the Senate, that's when he'll start moving up in the polls.

It's not enough to "not be Hillary." He needs to be Obama, whoever that person may be.


[ Parent ]
Two points... (4.00 / 1)
One reason that the electability attacks on Clinton aren't working is that they're contradictory to her opponents message about her in the primary - in the general, she'd "too polarizing", but in the primary, she's "too centrist". Both critiques work to cancel each other out, and voters are left questioning the credibility of her opponents. Obama is particularly at risk because wonking about electability is exactly the kind of activity that could raise doubts about his claim to be the deliverer of a "new" kind of politics.

The other point is that yesterday's Quinnipiac poll suggests that Clinton is not at a disadvantage to other Democrats in head to head comparisons with leading Republicans.

OK, I have a third point. Electability is a risky basis on which to choose a nominee. In 2004, part of Kerry's primary appeal was the toughness argument people thought he would be able to make in the general because of his military service. That didn't work out, obviously. Ultimately, candidates should leave the electability question to the pundits and get about the business of persuading voters by talking about the issues they care about.


Hm (4.00 / 2)
I don't think Obama was making the argument about electability, actually, a much as about the ability to put together a working coalition on issues that matter like health care. Someone who is a polarizing figure could easily get elected (ie, Bush), but it's governing that becomes the harder problem.

Totally agree with you that electability is a horrible argument in the primary, Kerry as a perfect example.

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.


[ Parent ]
Not sure Clinton loses on that one either (0.00 / 0)
Coalition-building on health care should have its limits. Clinton would certainly alienate the insurance industry and its caucus on Capitol Hill - but that's a good thing. It's not clear to me who, among those we'd actually want at the table, Obama would bring to the table that Clinton wouldn't on health care.


[ Parent ]
That's a good point (0.00 / 0)
But that wasn't exactly what I was talking about.

It goes more to the strength of a leader who the American people like, versus one they don't like and don't trust. Clinton's unfavorables make it that much harder for her to convince people - and the media - of things (like universal health care, or election reform, or any number of other issues).

People like Obama; they like hearing him talk. My sense is if he's elected, people will listen to what he has to say. I don't mean to say Clinton can't overcome this and could be a great leader if elected, I just think that's in part what Obama is talking about when he speaks of her high negatives. I am sure Chris' analysis is right, that the Clinton campaign is taking it as an 'electability' claim, but when I saw Obama speak recently he addressed this, and it wasn't about whether she could get elected in the general. It was about who had a better chance of pushing progressive policies once elected.

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.


[ Parent ]
I find it strange that you (0.00 / 0)
work for that 527 for Obama and yet you don't have any disclaimer in your tagline. 

[ Parent ]
You're relying on a common and flawed assumption... (0.00 / 0)
...about Obama's charisma. Charisma isn't going to produce a majority on Capitol Hill - everyone in Congress has an ego, and they know where their interests lie. They're not going to be so awed by Obama's oratory that they just start voting for his legislation. If Obama's oratory were going to translate into votes on Capitol Hill, it would be doing so already. But Capitol Hill just doesn't work that way.

Reagan is commonly credited with having had tremendous charisma - and his decisive victories in general elections tend to support that claim. But that charisma didn't turn Congress into his patsy. He suffered many, many defeats on Capitol Hill.

President Obama, President Clinton, or President Edwards is going to have to deal with Pelosi, Reid, and the Republican leadership in the Senate to get things done in 2009 - and star power isn't going to be what makes the difference. If it was, the Bush tax cuts would have been enacted during the Reagan Administration.

Essentially, Obama is trying to argue that because he draws bigger crowds than Clinton on the campaign trail, he's going to be better at whipping votes on the Hill. But if you compare endorsements of both candidates on the Hill, it appears that Clinton is held in higher regard by her colleagues than Obama.


[ Parent ]
Clinton Can Govern (0.00 / 0)
One of the reasons that Clinton has an electability advantage is that she can govern from day one and is prepared with Bill Clinton's cabinet ready to jump in. 

[ Parent ]
Rasmussen poll today (0.00 / 0)
Rasmussen poll today certainly high-lighted the electability issue(Aug 13-14th poll taken)

Guliani 47
Clinton 40

He talked about a surge for Guliani compared to the closeness of the race for the past three months

Also her un-favorables have jumped to 52
Favorables at 45

The lowest of her favorables this year in which her favorables were never lower than 47


[ Parent ]
But on Tuesday, Rasmussen had Clinton winning Florida... (0.00 / 0)
Lots of Rasmussen data here. Bottom line? It's way to early to base your choice in the primary on Rasmussen polling. On Tuesday, they had Clinton winning Florida. Last week 57% of Ohio voters thought Obama lacked the experience to be President - 58% of Florida voters agreed.

[ Parent ]
Rasmussen makes me laugh (0.00 / 0)
They are Republican pollsters and as such are suspect.

[ Parent ]
This confounds me (0.00 / 0)
It doesn't make sense - how can the candidate with (by far) the highest negatives in the race be seen as the most electable?

Just doesn't compute.


I think it is simple (0.00 / 0)
Most Democrats remember Bill Clinton winning. And so, they think of Hillary the same way.

[ Parent ]
electability is meta (4.00 / 1)
A candidate is considered electable when people think they can get the most votes, so in principle it is difficult to beat a front-runner, who by definition has the most support, with that argument. But if you want to make the argument you can't do it by citing polls of favorability, you have to identify issue positions that will convince primary voters that the candidate is a loser in the general. In other words you can't use a meta message to persuade people on a meta issue. Dean is a case in point, the ads attacking him were not about electability, they were about bin Laden.

Obama would have to attack Clinton with the messages that drove up her unfavorable numbers. But the Republicans used misogyny to drive her unfavorables up, Obama cannot do that and hope to win the Democratic nomination. So instead he hints around the issue and tries to benefit indirectly from a latent hostility to powerful women. It's a losers approach.


[ Parent ]
Not confounding (4.00 / 2)
Sometimes people just want the most competent person to fix the nations problems.  Who they want to have a beer with will wait for another election.

[ Parent ]
Clinton Is the Best Known-Most Vetted (0.00 / 0)
I think Clinton's negatives are the highest b/c she is the best known and most attacked candidate probably ever from her days as First Lady.  Plus, she is fully vetted - what are the Rs going to find about her that is not already out there? They have been mining dirt on her forever and the majority of people have all but tuned it out.

Edwards and Obama's negatives have nowhere to go but up whereas Clinton's are unlikely to change and if her previous electoral runs are any indication they may go down a little.  She showed in NY, even in the more conservative regions, that she has this dogged determination that slowly wins enough people over. 

I haven't picked a candidate yet but I don't buy into the Hillary can't win stuff.  In many ways she is the opposite of Rudy Giuliani.  She has a history of slowly winning people over while Giuliani has a history of starting strong and not wearing well over the long term.  Look at his popularity numbers from Sept 10, 2001 - most NYCers were happy to be rid of him.  Rudy can't run on 9/11 forever and once that happens all the problems from Bernie Kerik to Amadou Diallo to his family problems (his daughter supporting Obama is pretty embarassing) come back.  Frankly, the guy doesn't worry me.


[ Parent ]
I agree with Jennifer and Chris above (4.00 / 1)
I don't think Sen. Obama was making the case that he was more electable, I think that the Clinton camp did a great job of spinning it that way, and framing the debate in a manner which was more favorable to Sen. Clinton.

However, I think that the factor of electability is extremely hard to gauge, and people often separate who they would vote for from who they think others would vote for. So I think to understand "electability", it is essential to understand why someone feels that way, not just their yes or no response. 

For example, while she has high unfavorables, I think HRC is extremely electable based on the fact that Democratic voters have gotten up on election day, gone into the voting booth, and voted CLINTON before on multiple occasions, thus feel comfortable voting for CLINTON in a way they don't for other candidates. Or to put another way, they don't have the past experience or practice of voting for one of the other candidates.

Maybe Eddie Murphy nailed it in DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN, with his campaign motto, "Jeff Johnson, the name you know"

In my opinion, I think someone's electability isn't really known until after the electing happens, so it's not so constructive, maybe just far too vague, to debate with any certainty.


Meant to add... (0.00 / 0)
That when Dem voters have voted for Clinton, their decision was positively reinforced by him winning the election.

And I have found, especially among my friends that don't pay too much attention to elections but do vote that there is a strong disposition to want to be on the side that's winning or to pick the winner, as if they were placing a bet in Vegas. Just a personal observation of my knucklehead friends.


[ Parent ]
ELECTABLITY (0.00 / 0)
She has not been tested yet, How does she respond if she loses IA; sHE HAS NOT HAD A TOUGH CAMPAIGN,

Bill came back after losing IA and NH in 1992 Could Hillaru survive losing the first two Primary;s?


[ Parent ]
Hillary Loses to Guiliani (0.00 / 0)
Rasmuessen has Hillary losing to Guiliani in a head-to-head matchup by 7 pts.  This poll came out today.  Rasmuessen also said that Hillary's favorables went down and her unfavorables went up.  So, I don't think Hillary is making much headway with overall voters, just with democrats. 

Rudy Will Not Win (0.00 / 0)
Rudy Giuliani will never be President.  He is too prickly and that will come out.  Plus, his campaign needs more than 9/11 and even the sheen is coming off that one as the truth about many of the pre and post 9/11 mistakes come out.  Once you remove 9/11, you are stuck with Bernie Kerik, Amadou Diallo, corruption scandals, a divorce announced in public prior to telling his ex-wife, no relationship w/his children evidenced by his daughter supporting Obama, etc.  Rudy is losing badly to all Dems in his home state of NY in the latest Quinnipiac poll and one of his rationals for running is he can carry non-traditional R states.  If he isn't winning his home state, what outside of the traditional R base is he carrying? 

I predict the Rs are going to nominate Mitt Romney in the end.


[ Parent ]
The same poll ignored Obama (0.00 / 0)
Given the upward shift for Giuliani in the poll vs. Clinton, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have moved vs. Obama and Edwards as well - but they didn't poll that.

And before you get too excited about Rasmussen, read my comment from upthread:

Lots of Rasmussen data here. Bottom line? It's way to early to base your choice in the primary on Rasmussen polling. On Tuesday, they had Clinton winning Florida. Last week 57% of Ohio voters thought Obama lacked the experience to be President - 58% of Florida voters agreed.


[ Parent ]
Karma is ruling this election (0.00 / 0)
Bill Clinton had to fix the deficit which Bush 41 left this nation.  Now Bush 43 has left us two lost wars and a 500 bill deficit.  Hillary is a mature woman who spent her life working on issues and was part of the most successful administration in the later 20th century.  By comparison Obama looks young and immature.  Its not his fault but he should have waited until he was more seasoned or had a record to run on.

Hillary's record (0.00 / 0)
Then why doesn't Hillary have the records released from the Clinton Libtary regarding the first lady so we can examine her record.

I  want to see her policy making role and her decision making role on national security. Did she have security clearance to read the president;s daily national security briefings. What was her role on economic policy the budget. agricultural and economic policy?

She says that she can hit the ground running based on her experience as first lady. If this is the criteria then Laura Bush is qualified to be president.


[ Parent ]
Um... (0.00 / 0)
...Hillary Clinton is a two-term United States Senator - I think Laura Bush has some ground to make up before we can compare her fitness for Presidency to Hillary's.

[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search