Another Poll, Another Huge Clinton Lead
Although the headline is the Incredible Shrinking Kerry Candidacy; from 12% support to 7% in the space of one month. Here are the Democratic standings according to CNN:
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 33%
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 15%
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards 14%
Former Vice President Al Gore 14%
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry 7%
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark 4%
Delaware Sen. Joe Biden 3%
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson 3%
Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh 2%
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack 1%
If Obama keeps polling this strongly, he’ll find it difficult to resist running…he should: he’s a little too green at this point, and a failed bid would be worse than no bid at all…
If Edwards is doing this well with Obama and Gore competing for the anti-Hillary vote, he looks like he is very well positioned to emerge as the Anti-Hillary, and is probably the 2nd most likely Dem to win the nomination. He’s managed to recast himself as a darling of the Kossacks on the war and as a left wing economic protectionist, all the while leveraging the remnants of his moderate political reputation to make inroads on Hillary’s right and position himself as more electable. If he can keep it up for another 14 months he will be the nominee.
Yes, Edwards is doing (improbably) well…and that’s good news for Republicans, as I personally think he is one of the stiffest candidates I’ve ever had the misfortune of seeing in action…
I definitely think Obama should run. If he ends up being runner-up to Hillary, who then loses to Rudy or McCain, Obama can come back in 2012 or 2016 and lay claim to the nomination. It’s really a no-lose situation.
I dunno, Dave…the Democratic Party is pretty harsh with its also-rans…I can think of Republicans who have won after losing their initial campaign for the presidency (Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41) but I’m having a hard time thinking of any Democrats…
To be technical, Johnson (in ’64) and Gore (in ’00) both won the party nomination after previously failing to do so, although being the incumbent President and Vice-President at the time they secured the nomination may have had something to do with it.
He should run because he may never be this popular again. I think the Democratic Party’s gains in Congress are part of a wider “throw the bums out” sentiment, and Obama is new enough to be able to exploit it.
My initial feelings are generally one with Mark’s on this – what’s the rush? John McCain has a good shot at winning the GOP nomination, and he’s about twice Obama’s age.
But Jojo makes a good point. Obama is something of a flavor of the month, and with each passing election, a new flavor is bound to come along. He strikes me as a good speaker and a reasonably decent sort, and not much more. I’m inclined to say that’s not enough, but on the other hand, you elect a president for his leadership and his judgment as much as his agenda, because you never know what things will come down the pike. And being a good speaker and a decent sort are two definite assets, especially in a place like Washington, which has a surprising lack of the former and a more dispiriting lack of the latter.
There’s a problem with Hillary’s lead, and it’s something that smart political advisors on both sides of the aisle are telling their folks. Since 2000, the dynamics of elections has changed. You can thank Karl Rove for that if you want, but I think Carville was working this direction even in the 90s, but didn’t have the success that Rove has had.
Simply put, the strategy on winning elections up until 2000 has always been this: “Voters are about 40% Democrat, 40% Republican, and 20% Independent. These 20%, the swing voters, decide the election. Appeal to more swing voters and you’ll win.” If this was still the best strategy for winning, then Hillary might be a good candidate. But it isn’t, and she’s not.
The new strategy, especially in national elections is turn out the base. The problem with these swing voters that we always relied upon in the past, is a) they’re extremely fickle, and b) often not very motivated. A bad car-buying experience or bad weather on election day can change their vote or cause them not to come out at all. Karl Rove showed that the way you win is to motivate your base. You know how they’re going to vote, and are generally much more easily motivated.
Why does this doom Hillary? There’s a corrollary to this new theory. Don’t nominate a candidate that energizes your opposition’s base. I know that that’s not totally avoidable. I also know that just being energized against a candidate isn’t enough to win. Ask John Kerry. But a Hillary candidacy makes the Republican job of motivating their base that much easier. Republicans, rightly or wrongly, hate her. I’ve talked up Newt Gingrich quite a bit here, but he has the same failing. Democrats hate him. He’d make a lousy 21st century Presidential candidate for that very reason.
A candidate like Obama, or Edwards, or my personal favorite Democrat, Bill Richardson, is much less likely to whip the Republican base into a frenzy just by their very name than a Hillary Clinton would.
Chris, you make some good points, but let me play Devil’s Advocate here for a minute – didn’t the 2006 elections show that the Rove turn out the base approach is not infallible?…
I have to say I think Hillary is probably the Dems best choice, at least among their top tier candidates. Her resume dwarfs Edwards and Obama’s, she has some experience on foreign policy experience (and knows better than to ask for “takebacks”) and she’ll be a better candidate than Kerry.
As for Hillary-hatred, I honestly think its overblown. Hillary may still be as hated as she was among the So-Cons as she was back in 2000, but I think the rest of the Rep party has softened in their attitude of her (from “abject white-hot rage” to mere “strong dislike”). This will be a problem if the Reps nominate a candidate who could otherwise have problems with the So-Con base (like Rudy or McCain), but the Democratic strategy for success in 2008 hinges on the Republicans passing over their stronger candidates in favor or a Romney or Huckabee anyway, and Hillary would be the best candidate against those two. Especially against Huckabee who (contrary to my original assumption) can’t even beat Hillary in Arkansas!
I am a French student and I am writing articles in a student’s magazine in France (www.contrepoint.info). I am currently writing an article about the enxt election and the fact that American people seem to be ready to elect a woman. Could you confirm me that despite the division in the party that Hilllary Clinton remains the favourite candidate for the Democrat Party? thank you very much.
Marion, I definitely think Hillary remains the frontrunner, though Barack Obama has stolen some of her thunder…