TNR: Will Hillary Doom The Democrats? (the answer is quite surprising)

[rinsd]

(The New Republic) This column was written by Thomas F. Schaller.

Even with Barack Obama looking more and more competitive in the fast-approaching Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton remains the prohibitive favorite to win the 2008 Democratic nomination. But that hasn't quieted the grumbling - hell, downright speechifying - from some Democrats that if she were to become the nominee, Clinton would drag down Democratic chances in congressional and local elections in ways that neither of her main opponents (Obama and Senator John Edwards) ever could. "If Hillary comes to the state of Missouri, we can write it off," warned Missouri House Minority Whip Connie Johnson, an Edwards supporter, last October. "I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag," Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of nearby Indiana told the AP in August.

While there are plenty of other reasons not to vote for her, concerns about Clinton's down-ballot drag are overwrought. Though she could have a marginal effect on a few races here and there, our electoral system has become so shock-absorbent that presidential candidates barely have a down-ballet effect anymore. In 2004 George W. Bush posted what by today's lights was a solid win, and yet what coattails did he have? The Republicans made no net gain among governors; they added four U.S. senators (their biggest achievement) and a mere four U.S. house seats; and they lost about five dozen state legislative seats overall and net control of four state legislative chambers. Not since Gary Coleman last donned a tuxedo have we seen coattails this short.

<snip>

Let's presume for a moment that Clinton would be a drag. What down-ballot races would she likely affect?

Of the 11 gubernatorial races, three Democrats (Montana's Brian Schweitzer, New Hampshire's John Lynch, West Virginia's Joe Manchin) and three Republicans (North Dakota's John Hoeven, Utah's Jon Huntsman, Vermont's Jim Douglas) are safe incumbents likely to be re-elected no matter what. Contests that could be affected include the re-election bids of Washington Democrat Christine Gregoire, Republicans Matt Blunt of Missouri and Mitch Daniels of Indiana, and the race to replace term-limited Democrat Mike Easley in North Carolina. Blunt's head-to-head numbers against expected Democratic nominee Jay Nixon are probably too lousy to matter, but Washington and Indiana are swing states that might be influenced by the presidential campaigns. So, at worst, Clinton could make it slightly tougher for Democrats to re-elect Gregoire, unseat Daniels, and replace Easley. On that latter count, the nomination of Tar Heel native Edwards might be more helpful.

Turning to the Senate, Democrats Jeanne Shaheen and Mark Warner look solid in New Hampshire and Virginia. The races most likely to be affected by presidential politics included two with endangered Republican incumbents (Norm Coleman in Minnesota, Gordon Smith in Oregon), and two where Republican retirements in Colorado and New Mexico have provided Democrats with great pickup opportunities. In the two southwestern open-seat races, Edwards and Obama might be less helpful down-ballot than Clinton, who enjoys strong support among Hispanics. In the other two, Clinton could cause problems for Democrats in culturally conservative northern Minnesota and eastern Oregon, but probably no more so than Obama - the perceived difference between the two is likely quite small among white rural voters. Again, only Edwards might have some positive impact here. As for U.S. House races, though too numerous to discuss in detail, the wave of Republican retirements -- 10 announced so far in Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey and New Mexico alone -- will turn many of the key races into referenda on the quality of the parties' House, not presidential, nominees.

There is one other key factor to consider: Hillary's support among women - the one demographic that is disbursed evenly across almost every precinct, county, and state in the nation - could even make her a down-ballot asset in 2008, especially if she can turn out under-mobilized, unmarried female voters. But the fact is that neither she nor her main rivals will provide a significant drag or lift for Democratic office-seekers. Pantsuits don't have coattails anyway, so perhaps it is appropriate that a woman could become the first major-party presidential nominee at a time when presidential candidates don't pull many fellow partisans into office with them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/30/opinion/main3558528.shtml

[riqster]

1. "Not since Gary Coleman last donned a tuxedo have we seen coattails this short."

:rofl:

[Stop Cornyn]

2. The neocons at The New Republic pimping Hillary? What, you couldn't find a National Review article?

[rinsd]

3. Whose pimping?

Its examination of a meme that has taken on factual status even though it has little evidence to support it.

Here's TNR "pimping" Obama http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=c8aebe97-6289-4ec2-b6c8-ad14e59ccc0a

Here they are pimping Edwards

http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=155d217c-bae8-4992-8c99-970e208206a6

Yes they lean New Democrat but they are hardly the equivalent of Jonah and the bunch.

[depakid]

4. You won't see "evidence" until after the fact

So that argument is bogus.

Seasoned observers predict negative coattails here very clearly, based on many years of experience- though I expect that there are probably some computer modelers out there who could give you a range of down ballot outcomes, using a more scientific approach, based on numbers like her high negatives- using Monte Carlo simulations.

[rinsd]

5. Thank you for confirming its bullshit.

"Seasoned observers predict negative coattails here very clearly, based on many years of experience"

Self proclaimed experts on the internet and a big Edwards supporter do not count.

[depakid]

8. Clinton diehards should read the article below and assess the damage

that was and could again be done. Not that the Clintons care.

Hillary and the Politics of Disappointment

When Democrats worry about Hillary Clinton’s electability, they focus on her reenergizing a depressed Republican base while demoralizing core Democratic activists, particularly those outraged about the war, and consequently losing the election. A November 26 Zogby poll, for instance, now shows her trailing the major Republican candidates, while Edwards and Obama defeat them. But there’s a further danger if Hillary’s nominated–that she will win but then split the Democratic Party.

We forget that this happened with her husband Bill, because compared to Bush, he’s looking awfully good. Much of Hillary’s support may be nostalgia for when America’s president seemed to engage reality instead of disdaining it. But remember that over the course of Clinton’s presidency, the Democrats lost 6 Senate seats, 46 Congressional seats, and 9 governorships. This political bleeding began when Monica Lewinsky was still an Oregon college senior. Given Hillary’s protracted support of the Iraq war, her embrace of neoconservative rhetoric on Iran, and her coziness with powerful corporate interests, she could create a similar backlash once in office, dividing and depressing the Democratic base and reversing the party’s newfound momentum.

Think about 1994. Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary’s failed healthcare plan, and Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed. Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton’s going to the mat to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Angered by a sense that he was subordinating all other priorities to corporate profits, and by his cavalier attitude toward the hollowing out of America’s industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns. This helped swing the election, much as the continued extension of these policies (particularly around dropping trade barriers with China) led just enough Democratic leaning voters in 2000 to help elect George Bush by staying home or voting for Ralph Nader.

No place saw a more dramatic political shift than my home state of Washington. In November 1992, Democratic activists volunteered by the thousands, hoping to end the Reagan-Bush era. On Election Day, I joined five other volunteers to help get out the vote in a swing district 20 miles south of Seattle. Volunteers had a similar presence in every major Democratic or competitive district in the state. The effort helped Clinton to carry the state and Democrats to capture eight out of nine House seats.

But by 1994 grass-roots Democratic campaigners mostly stayed home, disgruntled. In Washington State, there were barely enough people to distribute literature and make phone calls in Seattle’s most liberal neighborhoods, let alone in swing suburban districts. Republicans won seven of our nine congressional races, and reelected a Senator known for baiting environmentalists.

The same was true nationwide.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/27/5460/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Then Why Did The Dems Pick Up Two Senate Seats While Nixon Was Waxing McGovern?

I doubt I'll get a (cogent) answer or a (clear) response...

[Tactical Progressive]

6. I would think Hillary would have long coattails

I'm not well-versed in this aspect of politicing, but just off the top of my head: if Hillary were to bring in new women who tended not to vote, or switch over women who tended not to vote Democratic, then wouldn't that provide a large down-ticket follow-through?

[Infinite Hope]

9. As a campaign manager in a toss-up district, I am...

not looking forward to a Hillary nomination.

[hedgehog]

10. Since there are 852 Super Delegates, opinions such as yours

may be the deciding factor in selecting a candidate.

[calteacherguy]

11. "prohibitive" favorite???

:rofl: