This morning, there is going to be a poll discussed on most of the Sunday talk shows showing Clinton performing poorly in freshman House Democratic districts. It will be used as one of the typical "gotcha" moments that these shows inflict on virtually anyone who appears on their program. Today, since she will be on multiple such programs, including Fox, it appears to be her turn. You can see the poll here:
Poll of 31 Districts With Freshman Democrats
The poll is fairly old, taken from July 21 to August 5th. It shows Giuliani leading Clinton 49-39 in these districts, while Obama only trials Giuliani 41-40 (page 5). While most of these districts are not in "swing states," some are: CO-07, FL-16, FL-22, IA-01, IA-02, MN-01, NH-01, NH-02, OH-18, PA-04, PA-07, PA-08, PA-10, WI-08.
The question that I imagine this poll will ask will be a two-fold discussion of electability. First, Clinton will be asked something about how much this poll reflects on her chances to win the Presidency. To that, I would recommend that she discuss the general election maps I put together last month, showing her comfortably ahead of Giuliani and crushing Romney. For those interested, here is an updated version, based on the most recent poll from each state:
Clinton 338-200 Giuliani
New Republican States: Connecticut
New Democratic States: Arkansas, Iowa, Florida, Missouri, New Mexico, Virginia. Plus four congressional districts in North Carolina.
States within three points: New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia
In other words, in actual polls of key swing states, Clinton seems to be doing just fine. Even if Giuliani had the table on states within three points, Clinton would still win. Combine this with her consistent leads over Giuliani in the popular vote, that she beats other Republican candidates by even more than this, and that this is a single, two-month old poll mainly of districts not in swing states, and I don't think this says much negative about Clinton's electability.
However, might it say something about Clitnon's coattails? The most interesting aspect of this poll is that, for the first time, it is a poll available to the public testing what impact the Democratic nominee will have on key congressional districts. At first, without knowing who the Democratic nominee is, Democrats lead in the named ballot against a generic Republican by a whopping 51-32. In other words, virtually all Democratic freshman appear to be quite safe. I mean, a 19-point lead in a named ballot against even a generic Republican? As Dick Vitale would say, that is blowout city, baby! After the named / generic ballot, the poll goes on to ask the following two questions:
Some people say (YOUR DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT) is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton and will support her liberal agenda of big government and higher taxes if she becomes President. If we re-elect (YOUR DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT) they will be a rubber stamp for Clinton and will forget the values of our district.
After hearing this if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you vote for [ROTATE] _the Republican candidate OR _(the Democratic incumbent), or are you undecided?
Republican: 41%
Democrat: 47%
Some people say (YOUR DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT) is a strong supporter of Barack Obama and will support his liberal agenda of big government and higher taxes if he becomes President. If we re-elect (YOUR DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT) they will be a rubber stamp for Obama and will forget the values of our district.
After hearing this if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you vote for [ROTATE] _the Republican candidate OR _(the Democratic incumbent), or are you undecided?
Republican: 38%
Democrat 44%
In other words, this poll shows the exact same 6% edge for freshman Democrats in the named generic ballot no matter if the local nominee is tied to Clinton or Obama. I think the key here is that the freshman Democrats are weakened not by the attack that connects them to any specific Democrat, but rather by the attack that they will be a tool of someone outside the district. In other words, it isn't tying Democratic candidates to Hillary Clinton that hurts them, but tying them to anyone from outside the district who is perceived as having different values.
What does this mean? First, it means that if Sunday shows are using this to attack Clinton, they really need to step it up and think of a better line of attack (cough, residual forces, cough). Second, I think it shows that the argument that Clinton would hurt Democratic coattails is just as fraudulent as the notion that she is unelectable herself. No matter who the Democratic nominee is, local Dems will be attacked for being connected to such a hateful, liberal, evil, socialist, anti-family, elitist traitor. The Republican attack machine will attack everyone in pretty much the same manner. If other candidates want to defeat Clinton for the Democratic nomination, they are going to have to choose a path other than electability (cough, residual forces, cough). |
