Clinton's Electability

The most common reason I hear for support of Hillary Clinton's candidacy is her electability in the general election. In a Washington Post/ABC poll conducted from July 26-31st, 500 Iowans were asked who, of the Democratic candidates, had the best chance at being elected in the general election the results went as follows: Clinton (35%), Obama (23%) and Edwards (22%). However, in the same poll, out of the top-three candidates, Clinton least "understands the problems of people like you", is the least "honest and trustworthy", least "closest to you on issues", and least "likeable." (Complete poll results are here) On the plus side for Clinton she is rated the "most experienced to be president" and "strongest leader." When asked whom these Iowa Democrats favor for the nomination 27% said Obama, 26% said both Clinton and Edwards. A statistical dead heat.

What this seems to say to me is that Democrats don't particularly like Clinton, out of the top three candidates, or trust her as a person; however, they trust her to win in November and that is all that matters after eight years of Bush. Competency before likability. However, Democrats, sadly, are not the only people who elect presidents in November. Republicans and independents count for something too. Therefore, it would be prudent to see what the polls tell us in presumed head-to-head match-ups for the general election. (It should be noted that these are national polls and reflect the supposed popular vote not the Electoral College, which is still the means of electing our presidents.)

Real Clear Politics is a good source for head-to-head results. They take the results of five to seven other polls and average them together to get an aggregate result. For simplicity's sake, I am going to just compare Clinton and Obama's results with the Republican field.

Clinton v. Giuliani (45.7% - 44.7% +1 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. Thompson (46.8% - 43% +3.8 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. McCain (46% - 43.8% +2.2 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. Romney (48% - 38.3% +9.7 Clinton spread)

Obama v. Giuliani (46.2% - 43% +3.2 Obama spread)
Obama v. Thompson (49.8% - 36.8% +13 Obama spread)
Obama v. McCain (46.5% - 40.8% +5.7 Obama spread)
Obama v. Romney (49% -36% +13 Obama spread)

In an election versus Giuliani, Obama does 2.2% better than Clinton
Versus Thompson, Obama does 9.2% better than Clinton
Versus McCain, Obama does 3.5% better than Clinton
Versus Romney, Obama does 3.3% better than Clinton

What is the cause of this? The cause is two-fold: 1) Clinton has a virtual 100% name recognition and most Americans have already made their mind-up about her, positive or negative, 2) Obama is still getting his name out there, so most Americans identify his party label, Democrat, as the overriding factor in their decision instead of their opinion about him. Clinton does worse than the "generic Democrat", while Obama does comparable to or better than the "generic Democrat." Every single candidate's unfavorables rise as the election goes on, so Obama's numbers may go down; however, every has their opinion on Clinton, so hers can't get much lower. (Clinton has a 47-49 favorable/unfavorable rating).

A couple of conclusions can be reached by looking at this data and it all depends on your bias. The Clinton bias would say that these are hard numbers, not likely to move because she has spent the last 15 years deflecting the Republican machine. Her favorables can only go up. Obama's numbers are soft because he has yet to be introduced to everyone in the nation, we have no idea what will happen to his numbers if that happens. Like her or not, she is the most capable Democrat to be elected president.

The Obama bias would say that there is very little wiggle room if we nominate Clinton. Obama's numbers, even if they fall, have a longer way to go than Clinton's until they are in the negative. Plus, Iowans who have met the candidates like Obama more than Clinton; we should, hypothetically, expect the same of the nation as a whole. Clinton is a national polarizing figure and America has had enough of polarizing figures. She will invigorate the right and likely increase Republican turn-out in a nominally Democratic year.

However, even Clinton supporters worry about the effect of a Clinton nomination. A recent article from the Associated Press tells of anonymous Democrats (everyone is afraid of the Clinton wrath) who worry that nominating Clinton will hurt down-ballot Democrats in close races. (read the article here) Clinton's polarizing persona will likely incur a groundswell of Republican opposition who turnout on election day just to oppose Clinton. These Republicans may not be able to defeat Clinton, but they could have a large effect on congressional and senatorial candidates.

EDITORIAL ALERT:
It is in my humble opinion, as a member of the Obama bias, that Clinton would surely win in November. I do believe she is electable, but she does not have much of a margin of error. Republicans at this juncture hate their choices for their nomination. They pleaded for Fred Thompson to enter the race, but he has already started to drop in the polls, had a major campaign shake-up, a poor financial showing the in the last quarter, and all this before officially declaring his candidacy. Thompson is a flame-out and it is still doubtful that Gingrich will enter the race. Republicans hate their choices, so why should we give them a reason to turnout on election day? Karl Rove had a successful strategy in 2004: turnout the base by putting hot-button issues on the ballot (abortion and gay-marriage). To conservatives Hillary Clinton IS a hot-button issue. Rove is hoping for the Democrats to put her on the ballot because it effectively fires up their base as much as gay marriage does (mostly because the far right sees her as a lesbian, anyway. A stupid claim). I worry about the effects on the Senate race in Colorado, the Senate race in Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, etc. if Clinton is on the ballot. Obama still has room to grow, whereas Clinton only has the margin of error. I don't want to give any more reason for conservatives to turnout on November 4th, 2008.

-Wyatt Earp