What if Hillary Clinton's electability argument is bogus?

[cali]

Hillary Clinton is still very far ahead in the 2016 Democratic primary, but she's also had one ace up her sleeve should any challenger get within striking distance: electability. She may not inspire the enthusiasm of Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, but she's got the moderate record and lengthy experience that would make her a strong general election choice.

That argument has come into question of late, however. Hillary is sliding in the polls. Her favorability numbers have fallen from about +8 to -10. And she's doing surprisingly poorly in head-to-head election matchups against Republicans — most shockingly, losing to Trump by five points in a recent poll.

All this raises the question: Would Hillary Clinton actually perform that much better than Sanders (or another challenger) in a general election? There are good reasons to suspect not.

To be sure, a great deal of Clinton's poor performance of late is likely due to blatantly unfair treatment from the mainstream media. We're now several weeks into wall-to-wall coverage of Clinton's email server thing, and there is still no hint that this supposed controversy is anything more than a minor bureaucratic foul-up. Indeed, we don't have any clear sense of what the story is even about. Just as it did during her husband's administration, the press is covering an untied shoelace like it's the Teapot Dome, while all but ignoring other egregious lapses in her judgment.

<snip>
http://theweek.com/articles/576257/what-hillary-clintons-electability-argument-bogus

[Renew Deal]

1. If she's not electable, she's not particularly useful

Tough to accept the baggage if she can't win.

[redstateblues]

2. Just like in the media, Hillary has been trashed

Here on DU on a daily basis.

[Maedhros]

28. Deservedly so, based upon her policies. [n/t]

[JoePhilly]

3. More news from band camp.

[cali]

11. yes, your comments fit well under that label.

Kind of sad that you are incapable of discussion and that even something as innocuous as this puts you in a huff.

[JoePhilly]

14. What made me laugh in that article is that is downplays the importance of the ...

...email "scandal", you know ... the same email scandal that you've been raving about for weeks ... to argue that there are so many much better reasons to dislike Hillary.

I guess Hillary created the fake email scandal so as to distract from all those other reasons.

If only you dropped the screaming about the email scandal, you could focus on those other terrible things.

Or something.

[cali]

16. I have written one op on the email brouhaha, and rarely comment at all on it

So you are wrong right off the mark with that bullshit accusation.I

I guess if you stopped making crap up, you wouldn't have anything to say.

[DanTex]

4. Then we have a problem. Probably Biden, maybe Gore or Kerry will

have to fill the gap if she falters. I don't think it will come to that, though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Biden would be a suitable Plan B. Kerry or Gore would be much worse.

eom

[DanTex]

6. I like Biden, but for some reason don't see him as a top-of-the-ticket guy.

Don't ask me why. Just a feeling.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Gore's biggest selling point was his fairy tale personal life.

Gore's biggest selling point was his fairy tale personal life. That is no more. John Kerry lost 44% of the Hispanic vote to GWB. Why would we assume he will perform better this time ? He also lacks the so called "common touch" that is said HRC lacks.

[DanTex]

8. I agree on both counts. Which is why it's basically Hillary all the way IMO.

Which is fine. I think her numbers will go up in time for the GE. Right now she's in a strange situation. Getting attacked from both left and right, and the media only talks about the email thing. A year from now, the email thing will be in the past, and the whole Democratic party will be campaigning for her.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. It's not as if we have an embarrassment of riches.

I do think Biden is a credible Plan B but his candidacy is not without challenges and his best day will be the day he announces.

My raison d'etre is supporting the candidate who can hold the White House and the rest is commentary.

[DanTex]

10. No, we don't. Dems need to work on that for the future. If only Obama had some long lost brother.

My raison d'etre is supporting the candidate who can hold the White House and the rest is commentary.

Yup.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Actually, Martin O'Malley is a great generic center left Democrat who could win.

Actually, Martin O'Malley is a great generic center left Democrat who could win the presidency but he has to win the nomination first.

[DanTex]

13. True, I'm impressed by him, but I see him more as a future nominee than this time around.

I could see him top of the ticket in 2024 or (hopefully not) 2020.

He doesn't really have a path to the nomination this time, unless Hillary decides to withdraw completely and throw her full support behind him. That could change in the debates, I guess.

Thing is, if Hillary does falter, I can't see going down smoothly. She really wants this. That's why I think if there's going to be a plan B, it's got to be a heavy hitter, which O'Malley is not at this point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Precisely

Thing is, if Hillary does falter, I can't see going down smoothly. She really wants this. That's why I think if there's going to be a plan B, it's got to be a heavy hitter, which O'Malley is not at this point.

People underestimate how tough she is. She is so tough that it is impossible to describe her without using metaphors that are usually used about men and therefore would be sexist.

[Chan790]

18. The folly is inherent.

If Hillary is going down...and it seems that she may actually be sunk...that support didn't disappear into the ether, it went somewhere as it was taken from her. The plan B needs to be the person (or one of the people) that took her out of this race...not any jump-in pushed by the establishment because their "anointed one" fell flat on her face.

A jump-in isn't likely to pull the party together with an electable GE candidates...it's just likely to create a 1968 scenario and hand the WH to the GOP. If Hillary can't hold, then it's time for the killing blow to come for the "establishment"...you're just going to have to suck it up and get enthusiastic about the outsider-wave that is going to obliterate the establishment. Besides, that's for the best...who wants to stand in a burning tent and try to hold up the roof while everybody else runs to the new, better tent that isn't soaked in Clintonite/Third-Way kerosene.

If Hillary falters, the establishment of the party is dead and the "heavy hitters" need to fall on their swords or fall-in-line, not jump-in; we can't afford to let them hand the WH to the GOP.

[DanTex]

20. First of all "appears that she may actually be sunk" is a ludicrous way to describe the

candidate ahead in the polls, the betting markets, endorsements, fundraising, and everything else. She's still in the strongest position any non-incumbent candidate has ever been in at this point in the race.

The thing is, nobody except for the far left cares about the whole nonsensical "Third Way corporatist" rhetoric. Despite the repeated denials, the fact remains that 53% of Americans won't consider voting for a socialist, and that nobody as far left as Bernie has won any significant election outside of a few deep Blue states.

If Hillary falls, it's not because people are clamoring for a Vermont socialist. It will be because of her own flaws as a candidate. This is unlikely -- she's a fighter, and she's weathered a lot -- but if this does happen, there does need to be a plan B, and it needs to be someone who already has name recognition and support, so that they can get running quickly. Biden fits the bill, so do Gore and Kerry. None of them are ideal, but all of them can win. Bernie, great man that he is, can't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Here's aggregate polling. Seventy five percent of Democrats oppose Senator Sanders' candidacy...

Here's aggregate polling. Seventy five percent of Democrats oppose Senator Sanders' candidacy:


http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary


You don't win a nomination when seventy five percent of the party rejects you, without a putsch.

[leveymg]

29. Do you know how to read a poll? Those graphs aren't negatives, they measure favorite candidate.

Looks like Hill's have been going down and Bernie's are going up so that the distance between them has now shrunk to about 20 points.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. No need to patronize me, sir.

"...Do you know how to read a poll? "

No need to patronize me, sir. I am confident that when I join the ranks of septuagenarians and look back at my life my crowning achievement won't be at taking pot shots, some subtle and some not so subtle, at anonymous posters on a political message board.

Now that we got that house keeping out of the way, sir, the polling suggests that the Vermont senator has been mired in the mid to low twenties for the past eight weeks, is now tied or trailing a candidate not even in the race, and is being rejected by over seven in ten Democratic primary voters, ergo:



http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

[Chan790]

38. I said nothing about Sanders...

actually though he is my preference, I expect that if a Hillary collapse occurs that the beneficiary of her falling support will be O'Malley, not Sanders.

The point is, nobody loses support without someone else gaining; it's zero-sum, for any one candidate's eroding support there is an offsetting gain....those supporters do not fall into a vacuum or cease to exist nor do they spontaneously-combust. If Hillary's falls out of the lead, one of the other people already in this race is going to have taken that support away from her. At that point, it is going to be too motherfucking goddamned late for an establishment plan-B candidate like Biden, Kerry or Gore to get in. If they want in, they need to get in now so they can be the one to coup d' grace Hillary and end her political career so they can steal her support.

That person (whether one of the other candidates already in or a designated establishment headsman getting in now to end Hillary), not the Plan-B late jump in...is your strongest candidate for the GE. They will have the momentum, the name recognition and the support to win where a late Biden, Kerry or Gore bid simply can't do more than make it a bloody primary and set us up to lose the GE. (For that matter I don't think any of them are really viable anyways...any of them would be the Democratic Fred Thompson of this election cycle. They have more than plenty loser baggage to completely offset their name recognition.)

[Fawke Em]

32. Why only Corpo-Dems?

[Chan790]

40. Because DanTex is a corpo-Dem...

one a lot like those that left us to become Reagan Democrats before they drifted back because they realized the Republican pool was filled with turds and we have a nice hottub. It's just too bad they came back covered in conservatism and committed to crowding out good Democratic constituencies to make room for 1%ers and Wall St. robber-bankers.

[randome]

17. This is like saying if voters don't support her then she might not win.

Duh.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. But...but...the polls overwhelmin show....

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

22. She will have to convince about 70 million people to go and vote for her if she wants to be POTUS

I have no idea who these people are that will vote for her. I do not personally know any democrats who will vote for her at all.

When people are thirsty and offered a glass of water they will drink it because it is the only choice people have even if the water is polluted people will accept it because that is the only choice. When people have the choice of polluted water or clean spring water, the rational people would choose the spring water.

People are making a choice and many are not happy with the choice being made by the people,

Too bad.

[restorefreedom]

24. the electability meme is crowd manipulation

Last edited Thu Sep 10, 2015, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)

it is part of the "inevitability" extravaganza.

she can not win a ge. but her campaign is trying to scare people into thinking she is our only hope against the republicans. when actually, she is the most likely (of hrc, bs, mo) to lose a g.e.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

25. Fear is all she has to run on

[Warren DeMontague]

26. It is. It's the same conventional wisdom that said Kerry was invincible because he was a war hero.

The same conventional wisdom which told us we better not nominate that one term african american senator with the funny name.

[pinebox]

27. There is but one

One person who the Dems can draft if Hillary is underwater and Bernie starts to look like he can't get the nomination & that is Elizabeth Warren. Other than that, you can say hello to the Republican POTUS.

[Dems to Win]

30. From No-Drama-Obama to All-Drama-All-The-Time-Clinton?

It's always seemed a tough sell to me, I've never bought the argument that Hillary is electable.

If Hillary is able to put the email scandal behind her (big if), the Rs will turn to the quarter million dollar speeches to banks and corps and the Clinton Foundation donations from the Saudis, etc. They'll go through them with a fine tooth comb, looking for possible quid pro quo coincidences. Oh, and don't forget Bill's half million dollar speeches to comb through, too.

Hillary's Iraq War Vote is a continuing drag on her ability to win an election, too. I personally know a woman in a swing state who is a registered Democrat but will absolutely not vote for anyone who voted to authorize that epic travesty. That's why I have zero interest in a Biden or Kerry candidacy.

The recent leaks from Hillary's campaign staff that Hillary will soon start showing heart and humor are evidence to me that her staff is just not up to the job. Obama's 2008 campaign would have never had such leaks from staffers.

[Scuba]

44. Bingo!

[Vinca]

34. I'm increasingly worried about her electability.

If the crazies on the other side remain in a frenzy and a good chunk of Democrats are demoralized and stay home, it could be very, very bad.

[MisterP]

35. "electability" just meant "she's the only candidate with money and offical backing,"

and everyone assumed that meant she'd be able to quash any primary challenger with the usual string-pulling and appeals to Dems who didn't dig too deep or have a more "residual" loyalty--she's "the party's candidate" and they support the party so they support her; but now Sanders blasted everything Clinton stands for by attacking the Republicans so her triangulation can't work with a real Dem in the mix instead of some hypothetical left wing of the party at one end and the Pub candidate at the other

in fact Sanders is attacking the self-seeking rightward-galloping party establishment that's barred the gates to activists and primary challengers at every point, and that has openly shown that it doesn't care if it wins or loses because the money keeps flowing; they pass the GOP bills they attacked during the campaign--and then they and their little flying-monkey hall monitors demand we #bowdown and take our finger-wagging lecture on how it was our purity obsession, our lack of enthusiasm, our failure to bus and phonebank for our masters that gave us a Pub Congress (which they then work with, often against the Dem members)

since 2004 "wish lists" of what 70-90% of the country (heck, of the NRA membership) wants and needs have been floating around, and Sanders's campaign is basically just that; but more than just promising to fight on these issues, he's attacking the Beltway system that's allowed the military contractors and Caymans to tank our economy--directly by selling everything off, and with trillions and trillions for war and materiel that doesn't work (recall that the hobbling of the Great Society and the stagflation that stampeded us into adopting the Chicago Boys--even under Carter--was apparently mostly due to the bills from 'Nam coming due)

dancing the nae nae on Ellen is right out of the 1992-2012 electoral era, something fun and cool, DayGlo and cheap CGI: we've been told there's so much sizzle a steak has to be somewhere around here for two decades now, but it's not working out except for the McMansion classes (or what's left of them)

now every time they use an electability argument a lot of stuff starts floating up: "why no debates?" "what deck HAVEN'T they stacked?" "and yet she has freefalling poll numbers with every advantage handed to her on a platter" "so desperate they've gone from opting Biden to opting Kerry" "nothing to offer" "cribbed some stuff from Sanders but then ran straight to the big donors to assure them they're empty words" "supporters say empty words she admits she won't follow through on are enough for them because she's just so incredible" "that seat's wet now, don't sit in it"

she was only "the electable one" because she was the only candidate running, but the connections, whispering campaigns, and promise of a billion-dollar campaign are precisely what are hurting her in the primary--technically she had "100% support" at one point, before anyone else announced, and the more people hear of her and Sanders the less she's liked: the previous style of politics hasn't worked out for 95% of Americans, and a very wealthy careerist and proud warmonger who already has a dishonest reputation is the picture-perfect epitome of what the party has let itself become

Sanders OTOH has had a sterling record, supporters who back him because of what he supports and not vice-versa (and who he asks not to ever give him the benefit of the doubt, because that's what let the party rot from the inside out), hasn't neglected any of the issues they accuse him of neglecting, and who had a reputation as a go-to guy to convince your douchey uncle well before 2015 because he lays everything out in neat poli sci fashion

[hifiguy]

36. She will be "inevitable" until suddenly she is not. nt

[jfern]

41. This poll may have ended her being "inevitable"

She's down a 10 point lead at 37% in the primary, and does 10 points worse than Biden against Bush and Trump.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251584314

[Skwmom]

37. Tom Brokaw stunned by Hillary's I didn't think comment.

She’s made some huge mistakes, in my judgment.

In that wonderful interview that Andrea initiated and typical of Andrea she went right after that issue, when she said ‘I didn’t think’ about the effect of email, I was stunned. We were deep into the digital age at that point. She’s secretary of state.

I think it takes away from her big argument of ‘I’ve been there, I’ve done that, I know what I’m doing.’

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/tom-brokaw-stunned-with-hillary-clintons-handling-of-email-server-video/

[MBS]

43. Michael Tomasky March 2015

Remember, for context, this piece is dated March 6, 2015. .. but it gets close to describing what bugs me most about "emailgate"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/06/clinton-not-a-scandal-yet-but.html?

Clinton: Not a Scandal, Yet. But…
The Times was sloppy, and the Beltway overheated as usual. But even if this story floats away, Clinton needs to learn some lessons from it.

The Times’ overheated sloppiness does not mean, however, that Clinton is totally in the clear here. . .. The citizens on whose behalf she was conducting business obviously have the right to hear her explain why she opted to use a private account. And we have the right to know whether the private server was more secure than State’s or less, and whether any classified information was electronically transported across this server. . .. She doesn’t have to have said anything self-incriminating in these emails. The way the other side is out to get her, one ill-considered verb could end up being hung around her neck for days or weeks.

But even if this story were to end right here, or right after she does a press conference about it, there are a couple of lessons Clinton ought to take away from this. First, she desperately needs someone on her staff to serve as a kind of average person-common sense barometer, and this person has to have the stature to be able to give it to her straight, and she has to listen to this person. In this case, back in early 2009, this person might have said something like, “I don’t know, Hillary. When an average person gets a job at First Federal Bank, he gets a First Federal email address, and that’s the account through which he conducts his banking business. Anything other than that is just gonna look weird to people.”
Or, last year, on the topic of her paid public appearances: “No, Hillary, not Goldman Sachs. Avocado growers, I see no harm. American Association of Sheetrock Manufacturers? Fine, if you insist. But not Goldman!”

. . . Yes, she ought to be able to make these calls herself, but it seems clear that she can’t. They’re obviously not Bill’s strong suit either. So since neither of them seems able to do it, they need to hire some help. Or maybe assemble a panel of actual average Americans, and when one of these decisions looms, her staff can video-tape the panel reacting, and she can watch.

[Skwmom]

45. It's much more than the emails. n/t

[MBS]

46. yup. n/t

[jfern]

39. It is bogus

Biden runs 10 points better against Bush and Trump than her.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251584314

[Capn Sunshine]

42. Yeah, and what if Trump is actually what people want?

And what if the rain doesn't come this winter? What if the winter wheat is askew?
What if Clinton better not rely on her supposed electability? Better to just win on the merits?

Would you be happy then?

I'm dubious there's any scenario that ends in your happiness. When DU first started in 2001, and the pain of Bush's theft was still fresh, I thought that the people complaining about Bush were all on our side.

I found out eight years later, some people just complain about the President, no matter what.