Be careful what you wish for, Rush
I’ve long been of the belief that Hillary Clinton would be the much easier Democratic candidate for a Republican to beat next November. Now I’m not so sure.
The conventional wisdom is that her negatives are so high that she has little margin left for victory. However, she is a Clinton, and Clintons have famously tread close to the edge of defeat before eventually winning. Think the 1994 Republican landslide, think Monica, think New Hampshire, and now Ohio and Texas. It’s almost like a game where they spot the opposition as many points as possible so that the comeback is that much more impressive.
The conventional wisdom also holds that Barack Obama is the candidate with appeal to independents and Republicans. As is so often the case with conventional wisdom, the facts don’t bear that out. Obama’s largest victories have come in strongly Democratic and strongly Republican regions. He is winning blacks and urban “latte-drinking,” “prius-driving,” “Whole Foods-shopping” white Democrats. He also has a knack for easy wins in western caucus states–states that, let’s be frank, aren’t voting Democrat in November.
Hillary, however, is winning swing voters in swing states. In Florida she carried elderly swing voters and suburban women. In Ohio she won blue collar and rural Democrats. These are Reagan Democrats. They are the kinds of Democratic voters who can vote Republican if the contest is right. They are the kinds of Democratic voters who very well may vote Republican if the contest is between a former fighter pilot and someone who can easily be portrayed as an out-of-touch Ivy League elitist. For all the talk about how he is a “new kind of Democrat” there is little evidence of an Obama appeal to Republicans. (Don’t bother with exit polls showing that he is leading Hillary among Republicans who voted in the Democratic Party. That is evidence instead of anti-Hillary “stake-in-the-heart” Republicans.)
As for Obama, sure he is stronger with blacks and urban liberal whites, however, regardless of what you read on the progressive blogs now, they are going to dutifully vote for the Democratic candidate in November no matter who it is. Their anti-Hillary bluster is just empty noise, no more significant than the McCainimosity you hear on Republican talk radio.
This is the argument that Hillary is going to make to the super delegates between now and August. It’s an argument that will be bolstered by the blue collar and rural successes that she is likely to have in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
Remember who the super delegates are: elected Democratic leaders and senior party operatives. These are people who know politics. And what they know is this: They can take blacks and liberals for granted and still get their vote, but they can’t win against a centrist Republican without keeping Reagan Democrats voting Democrat.
The super delegates will then remember why their party has super delegates: to save the Democratic Party from itself.
MORE:
Victor Davis Hanson on Obama’s campaign:
. . . there is a McGovernish flavor to the campaign of a bunch of freelancing ideologues that are going off message and in sloppy fashion ranting and raving in petulant 60s-style.
McGovern is why there are super delegates in the Democratic nomination process. Read the whole thing, including his “stake in the heart” analogy.
ALSO:
Rich Lowry offers this short blurb with a near-identical sentiment:
Was just talking to a Republican strategist who’s worried about Hillary winning on “careful what you wish for” grounds. One of his points is that she will be a “different Hillary” than when she started this process, and a much tougher candidate. She will have mounted an extraordinary comeback, overcoming adversity and definitively establishing her political independence from Bill.
He wrote that last night but I didn’t see it until just now. As Hanson cautioned:
Never count out, underestimate, or take the stake out of the Clintons.
MORE:
I get the feeling that the more folks on the right see the vulnerabilities of Barack Obama, they begin to wonder if he’s even more beatable than Hillary.
[Tuesday’s] election results demonstrated the fragility of Obama’s house of cards, because the Obamamania is already starting to wear off. I predicted that in the long term, he would be the weaker of the two candidates for this very reason, and that he, not Hillary, would be the easier of the two for McCain to beat.
Besides, the real softness of the campaign is not that Obama is a wimp. It’s that he has never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona.
If he can’t explain that, he’s going to lose at some point anyway.
Brooks’ column is also worthwhile for the description of those yuppie Obama fans as “upper-middle-class goo-goos.”
BTW, in Tennessee this is a goo-goo:
Perhaps they are lower-middle-class. This might be an example of the upper-middle-class goo-goo that better appeals to Obama supporters:
ONE MORE:
Her success tends to mirror the population centers of those of Scots-Irish ancestry who settled in the more mountainous parts of the east and south. Yes, they tend to be the whitest part of each state, too. But Obama’s success in rural Wisconsin underscores that he can appeal to the right sort of blue-collar white voter (say, those in the Upper Midwest with Scandinavian roots).
If Martin is right–and I suspect he is–that certainly adds to the push to make Jim Webb Obama’s running mate. After all, he wrote the book.
There is also a parallel conversation going on in the comments at Volunteer Voters.
FINALLY:
“Be careful what you wish for, Rush,” is what Hillary Clinton said to an interviewer when asked Wednesday morning about what she though regarding Limbaugh’s support for her in the two primaries this week. For supposed Rush Limbaugh listeners, I would have thought that you would have taken notice of my headline, since Rush played Hillary’s soundbite over and over during Wednesday’s show.
Notice also that it was I who was of the belief that Hillary was the easier candidate to beat. Quite honestly I’m now thinking that the Democrats are in sad shape whatever they do. Consider this: they so abhor Hillary Clinton that they are on the verge of nominating an absolutely unknown, untested nobody.
In what by any measure should be an easy Democratic victory how did they get to the point where in 2008 they are left with a choice of Attilla the Hun or Chauncey Gardner.
FINALLY (AND I MEAN IT THIS TIME):
I’m not the only one who has made the connection between Barack Obama and Chauncey Gardner. So too has Joel Stein–or more accurately, Stein’s mother. And Stein is an Obama supporter!
March 7th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Over at RCP they have two red/blue maps, one Obama/McCain, one Clinton/McCain.
McCain is behind in both, but within striking distance of both. That said, in the Clinton map, she picks up Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, which is one heck of a trifecta.
Play with fire by messing with the other party’s primary, you may get burned.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I think history shows that Americans will vote for someone they don’t like, but not someone they don’t trust. This is why Hillary is the more dangerous opponent. However, given her issues, a Republican party that can’t beat her deserves a reboot. And wouldn’t you really have the other guys be the ones who say “no you can’t?”
March 7th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
John F. you make an excellent point, one I have not thought of. I had just mentioned on my blog that given Hillary’s negatives and the fact that many don’t like her still makes her a better candidate to face off against. You also help in making my point that by Hillary running throws the “change” message out the door, at least in the sense that Obama is pushing it.
Something else I don’t think we should underestimate, regardless of who the nominee is. Whenever and however this ends, there is going to be some bad blood within the Democratic Party. Right now, Hillary is going to have to win by superdelegates, which by many supporting Obama will be seen as stealing the nomination. If Obama wins, the Clinton campaign is not going to be happy about giving up what THEY saw as rightfully theirs…I mean hers.
I still think there is a lot of this story to be written before it’s all said and done.
Nice post Bob…it has got me questioning my position on wanting Hillary as the nominee.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
The goal is NOT to have her win, but to figh on in the typical Clinton Pit Bull style, with her backalley knife fighters digging in Obama’s Chicago political upbringing. He indeed WOULD be the Second Coming if he doesn’t have some muck on his shoes from that political cesspool.
However, it is possible Hillary could win; to do so, she’ll need to finagle Florida and Michigan into the mix and bludgeon more than her fair share of the super-delegates. Doing that would alienate Barack’s supporters and fracture the Party. Only having his as VP would prevent that and could he actually sign on for that if the top slot was ’stolen’ from him?
She’d be much easier for McCain to beat that way. so, with this understanding, I posted some advice for Hillary on my site linked above.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I agree with the “be careful what you wish for” philosophy. However, I was in favor of Hillary over Barack simply because if the consequences for the country will be less severe if the Dems win with Hillary. At a certain point, you have to ask not only, “Who can the GOP beat?” but “Who can we work with if we lose?”
I still don’t think we’ll lose, and I agree we’ll have a tougher time beating Hillary than Obama. But an Obama presidency represents a far greater threat to GOP interests than a Hillary one. The first step is to get him beat. Then we’ll take on Hillary and let the chips fall where they may.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
i nefer saw rush as arguing that hillary would be easier to beat. his argument was that he wants the contest to keep going, because it is keeping them both from moving to the center, and is allowing them to say things that mccain and the republicans can’t say. To that he cites examples like some apparant hillary supporter releasing the picture of barack dressed as a somali priest. Other people like Glenn Reynolds have argued that this contest is making dems notice what republicans have said for years–such as that the media is horribly biased. not that reynolds supports limbaugh’s strategic voting plan, but that is an argument in favor of that position.
I think Rush has a valid point, although i am not sure it outweighs the value of the fact that they will still be in the news and soon mccain will not be.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Rush is either the dumbest jerk on the right or an incredibly irresponsible & craven entertainer.
“Let’s keep the soap opera going?” Why not let HRC end her career and any hope of a revisionist Clinton legacy a time when she would have been remembered for running one of the worst campaigns in history?
Q: How many Dems would have given her another shot in 2012 if her campaign ended last Tuesday?
A: About the same as the number of Republicans that hope that Rudy or Fred will run in 2012.
Q: How many Dems would be clamoring for Barack if he lost the general?
A: About as many that are hoping John Kerry run again.
Q: How could we stop Barack?
A: Look at what’s happening now. He’s taking positions and they aren’t even popular with his own people, let alone us.
Q: What would have filled the news vacuum all summer if the to parties had their nominee?
A: P. Fitzgerald & Rezko, Rezko, Rezko.
Thanks, geniuses.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Doesn’t anyone whose criticizing Limbaugh on this issue actually listen to him? I mean like the guy is on hundreds of radio stations for hours every weekday (except when on vacation), and even has a website, so how difficult is it to actually read/listen to the man’s own words?
What I heard him say is that he doesn’t want St.Hillary! to win, he wants the race between her and Barry Obamahdi to last as long as possible, for the two of them to dirty each other up. Do what Keating-McCain and the GOP will never do once the Dems have their candidate.
He’s right. Whichever of these two wins will never get any press scrutiny, and any any GOP attempt to say anything about either will be immediately called “racist” or “anti-woman”. And we can’t have that, even when it might be true. So let them go at each other, spending millions of dollars on exposing each other’s flaws.
And its also delicious to see the Dems and the Left whine about interference, considering how they’ve behaved in years past.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
[…] Reading: Peggy Noonan Andrew Sullivan Bob Krumm Classical Values (last two links via Glenn […]
March 7th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
“I think history shows that Americans will vote for someone they don’t like, but not someone they don’t trust.”
And I think that capsulizes Hillary’s biggest problem — she’s both disliked AND distrusted.
And with good reason — she’s both unlikeable and untrustworthy.
I believe there are more than enough voters who would simply stay home if Obama is the candidate, but who will come out to vote AGAINST Hillary.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Maybe you guys aren’t old enough to remember how badly Carter wanted Reagan as his opponent. Remember how that worked out.
Having said that, no matter why Rush claimed (or claims) he is encouraging Repubs to vote in Dem primaries, it doesn’t seem to me to be a good idea. Messing with the other guy why he’s being busy tripping himself is rarely a good idea, as was known by Napolean. Let the Dems do whatever it is they’ll do and worry about your own game.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Rush never said he wanted Senator Clinton to get the nomination, just for GOP’ers in Texas to vote for Hillary to keep the Democratic nomination process going on as far as possible, damaging whoever gets nominated. He in fact has explicitly stated he is not trying to influence who gets the nomination, just on keeping the nomination process extended and bloody. So your premise that you base this entire article on, is incorrect.
Ed: But not smart enough to read to the bottom.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I listen to Rush everyday, and his “it’s not my fault if the GOP nominee loses to either candidate” is just whistling past the graveyard now that it’s too late to take it back.
All the Rush apologists for this incredibly shortsighted and irresponsible act seem to miss a couple of obvious facts:
1. Whether Rush wanted HRC to win the nomination is irrelevant. As Rush says on a regular basis: GOOD INTENTIONS DON’T COUNT.
2. She IS going to be the nominee if Barack continues to implode.
3. She could NOT have won the nomination if (according to the exit polls) Rush hadn’t egged on self-identified Republicans that comprised 1 out of every 10 Hillary voters. 1.4 million Hillary voters * 10% = 140,000 Republicans. Difference between Barack and Hillary in TX? about 90,000.
4. Don’t pretend that these super-delegates (who are largely professional politicians) won’t figure out that Barack is UNELECTABLE. A few more outbursts by his spoiled brat wife and/or scandals that strike right at the heart of his message like NAFTAgate and/or MansionGate and the black superdelegates will have all the cover they need to DEFECT EN MASSE to the candidate THEY SUPPORTED FOUR SHORT MONTHS AGO, a possibility that would have been utterly precluded if he had buried her in Texas.
5. Either candidate has NEEDED a majority of the super delegates to win the nomination for weeks. If the rank & file blacks stay home (yeah right) the Dems suffer, but they could still win. If rust belt blue-collar Whites decide they would rather support a war hero than some whiny yuppie couple that got every break and still manages to resent America, the democrats are absolutely sunk. If Jews who care about Israel decide they would rather entrust foreign policy to McCain than to a guy that had trouble denouncing a jew-baiting would-be fascist clown like Calypso Louis, then they are sunk. IT IS THE JOB OF THE SUPER-DELEGATES TO SAVE THE PARTY FROM AN UNELECTABLE CANDIDATE.
So… End of Clinton 2.0 PLUS an exceedingly weak candidate whose negatives are just starting to come out - OR - and enjoyable food fight? Tough choice isn’t it?
March 8th, 2008 at 12:25 am
1. Obama and Clinton can get away with attacks that McCain couldn’t get away with (it’s not even clear if he has the stomach to attack them). The media will try as hard as they can to help the Dems, but only once there is a nominee. Now is the time for the mudslinging… and McCain stays nice and clean. That wouldn’t have happened had Obama won Texas big.
2. Obama has longer coattails. A lot of first-time voters (young voters and blacks) and voters for change (anti-incumbents) will be voting for Obama. The GOP is already in danger of being in a super-minority in the Senate and they could down by a margin of 40-50 in the house if a surge of new Democratic voters come in. I think lots of people will stay home if Hillary wins because they don’t want to vote for Hillary and McCain is pretty moderate anyway. That is true, but its the Senate and House that is important.
March 8th, 2008 at 7:36 am
I agree with ‘Hillary was the easier candidate to beat’ and she is still the easier candidate to beat(50% of the country abhors her and if she defeats Obama that % will increase).
Prior to Obamarama wasn’t the entire point of nominating McCain based on the Polls showing he could defeat Hillary? And, did not registered Democrat voters cross party lines to help McCain get the Republican nomination?
I’d rather have Hillary defeat Obama so that she’ll be the object of Moveon.orger’s vicious games; let the Democrats rip each other apart for a change, it will help to clarify for moderate/independents just how extreme to the Left has become the Democrat Party.
If it’s McCain vs Obama and McCain defeats the “Chosen One” the last seven years of “McChimpneoconhitlernazi and his evil rethuglian regime” coming from the Left will be child’s play compared to what they’ll do to McCain.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Very good post, bob. I’ve been thinking the same thing for a few days now.
Two events that struck me were the contrast between McCain’s press conference after the NYT story and Obama’s after Tuesday.
By one count McCain answered 36 questions and it only ended when the reporters ran out of question.
Obama quit after 8 questions, and the press got angry when he started to leave. His “hey I answered 8 questions” was not taken well by the press.
McCain has and will have dustups with individual reporters, but if Obama thinks his celebrity status will keep the press from going after him he’s kidding himself. If he’s not careful they’ll turn on him with a venganec.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Zach:
1a. That’s one of Rush’s rationalizations for why he did it, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. McCain doesn’t even HAVE to run negative against Barack. All he has to say is: vote for me, I’ve actually accomplished something in my life and take the presidency more seriously than “let’s try what my [left wing kook] friends want and see what happens.”
1b. It doesn’t matter what John McCain wants. The 527’s are going to make sure that every would-be Obama voter knows that a) he is the product of the most corrupt machine in America, and b) a scarily incompetent nobody whose one line summary will be: “Vote for me, I’m black and can stir up morons with my vacuous speeches.” (I live in a Blue state and have heard this from a lot of people who would normally crawl across glass to vote against the GOP.)
1c. McCain will be able to attack Obama on issues that Hillary can’t precisely because they are so close on the issues: Massive spending overruns, tax hikes, energy tax dabbling, and the truth that they aren’t really going to be able to deliver on a withdrawal from Iraq in a time-frame that will keep the nutjobs happy.
2. Carville pointed out that there’s a term for the candidate relying on a crop of new voters: “the loser”. New voters are a tiny minority compared with the current voters. Women voters are an actual majority, and a disproportionate number of them are extremely sympathetic to Hillary.
Syn:
Relying on current poll standing 9 eons before the election is nuts. The people who say they will vote for the Democrat today, or Hillary today, or even for Barack today include a large number of white male “Reagan Democrats” that don’t like whiny yuppies who hate America, and don’t like being played for Rubes. (See Ohio, and coming soon, Michigan/Florida 2.0)
As Hillary has pointed out, people already know her. Barack is still largely unknown precisely because Hillary can’t attack him. Once it becomes obvious that he is just another ethics challenged politician, or that his wife really does have a massive chip on her shoulder, or that he likes to hang out with far left kooks then the love affair will be over and they will vote for McCain. They can stomach a person they hate to get some political handouts, but they won’t tolerate someone they think is a dangerously unprepared empty suit.
March 8th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
For those still thinking HRC is easier to beat, what do you think the true believers will say when they hear about this…
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,4762574,print.story
They will before November. A Nice slow news summer is just the sort of motivation reporters need to start digging for a name making story.
March 9th, 2008 at 5:20 am
“Relying on current poll standing 9 eons before the election is nuts.”
Relying on polls is nuts, polls help an uninformed public elect bad leaders.
Mark, despite whoever the poll’s candidate is on any given point in time I gather you still do not understand just how vicious is the progressive Left in the Democrat Party.
That said; I have to wonder if ‘Reagan Democrats’ who are considering either Hillary or Obama understand Reagan or Conservatism because if they did they wouldn’t be associated with the current Democrat Party.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:43 am
[…] Which dem is easier to beat? […]
March 11th, 2008 at 10:00 am
[…] heard it here […]
March 11th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
“…Hillary Clinton would be the much easier Democratic candidate for a Republican to beat next November. Now I’m not so sure.”
Relax. I’m sure enough for the both of us. In fact, I’m sure enough for even a few dozen others to be unsure!
March 12th, 2008 at 3:16 am
The next president will have his/her hands full.