October 10, 2007
Hillary Clinton: Not Polarizing and Highly Electable (Lanny Davis)
You didn't misread that headline. It is contrary to all current conventional wisdom.
It is also true — supported not only by recent national polling data but by most polls all year long.
According to the latest Oct. 4 Washington Post/ABC News national poll of all voters from all parts of the country, Hillary Clinton's "polarization" rate (i.e., the percentage of people who would "definitely" not vote for her, no matter what — also called the "rejection rate") is 41 percent. That is statistically identical (within the margin of error) to Barack Obama (39 percent) and John Edwards (43 percent).
Even in the South, where the same conventional wisdom would predict that Hillary Clinton would be most polarizing, the results are the same dead heat: Edwards (47 percent would "definitely" not vote for him), Clinton (46 percent) and Obama (45 percent).
Now compare the polarization/rejection rate for the three leading Republicans: Rudy Giuliani — 44 percent; John McCain — 45 percent; Fred Thompson — 54 percent; and Mitt Romney — 57 percent.
Funny how you never see the words "polarizing" in front of these male presidential candidates as much as you do in front of the name of the female candidate, Hillary Clinton. Get the drift?
Two of The Washington Post's leading national political reporters, Dan Balz and Jon Cohen, summed up the myth-puncturing conclusion as follows:
"Many Republicans have said that they are eager to run a general election against Hillary Clinton, describing her as a highly polarizing candidate who would unite and energize the opposition. But, as of now, Clinton appears to be no more polarizing than other leading Democratic contenders. Nor is there a potential Republican nominee who appears significantly less polarizing."
Regarding electability, the Post/ABC News poll shows Sen. Clinton defeating the Republican front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, by substantial margins. Among all voters, Clinton is leading Giuliani by eight points — 51 percent to 43. Among those following the race most closely (which presumably would be the case for most voters by Election Day 2008), the margin was of landslide proportions — 18 points: Clinton 58 percent to Giuliani's 40.
Moreover, Sen. Clinton's lead over Giuliani is not just among Democrats. Significantly, she leads among independent voters (48 percent to 44, within the margin of error) and has a substantial lead among women — 57 percent to 39.
So why are so many people so convinced that the above poll results cannot be accurate — even though they reflect the results of other polls taken by other credible polling organizations over most of the last year? The answer is the power of repetition — if a false or misleading assertion is made often enough, it becomes perceived as fact. And the Internet provides the engine of millions of "hits" in the misinformation echo chamber.
Take, for example, the number of Google hits on the words "polarizing" and "electability" when used in the media and in the blogosphere in association with Sen. Clinton — versus the other presidential candidates in both parties:
"Polarizing" Google hits
Hillary Clinton: 1,260,000
[I am not making this number up - try it out]
Rudy Giuliani 3
Mitt Romney 1
Fred Thompson 0
Barack Obama 5
John Edwards 0
"Electability" Google hits
Clinton: 20,200
Obama 202
Edwards 731
Giuliani 669
Thompson 51
McCain 80
Romney 49
So there you have it. The very repetition of these two words as problems associated with Sen. Clinton has led many people to conclude that they must be true — that is, just by virtue of their constant repetition. How circular. And now, in the recurring polling data all year long, we have some good evidence to prove that the conventional wisdom on Hillary as more "polarizing" than any other candidate, and as unelectable, is just plain wrong.
Some Democrats may choose, as I have, to support Sen. Clinton as the most qualified and experienced candidate. Or they may choose Sens. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) or Barack Obama (D-Ill.); or former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) or New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) — all of whom are highly qualified and capable and could make superb presidents. This is certainly the strongest field of Democratic presidential candidates in my memory, and I'm proud to be a Democrat to have so many strong choices.
There are lots of important issues facing our country — Iraq, the war on terror, energy independence, healthcare, the need for an experienced president in a post-Sept. 11 world. Democrats should look forward to these capable Democratic candidates debating these great issues and making their decision.
But one reason should not be a factor — that there is a significant difference among any of the Democrats regarding "polarization" and "electability." Indeed, as of now in the polls, Sen. Clinton appears stronger in the general election against any Republican. Facts are facts.
Unlike George Bush, we Democrats use facts to reach conclusions — not conclusions in search of evidence to support them.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 16 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Lanny, this was so touching I almost cried. Hillary is a wonderful, humane, caring politician who will bring everyone together, because after all she is for all of us, collectively of course. While she may want to take money from some, it's all for the common good, of course. And of course she will have no problem uniting the country. How could she be inevitable otherwise? Her soothing voice, often especially adapted for a particular audience, indicates respect.
I'm sure our armed forces will be proud to serve under this commander in chief. Her admiration for the military is legendary, and of course would never require any suspension of disbelief. When encountering a problem, such as Hsu, she uses and abundance of caution and acts pro-actively to return more money than anyone suspected was collected through him.
In summary, Lanny, your piece was a solid list of reasons why she is the one. Thanks Lanny for tough choices you're helping us make. Saw you on H&C last night, you're looking good, sounding good and soon you will be an important person in a new administration. Love you, bro! Just don't tase me, please.
Comment by Igor R. — October 10, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
The Washington Post is a liberal rag who has a vested interest in their continued support of the Clintons. Can she be elected? I don't think so. But that's my opinion. The funny thing is I have never met a woman yet who will vote for Hillary Clinton. Polls have been incredibly wrong in the past and I think that by next summer her problems with the truth will catch up to her.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 10, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Well…here is one woman who will most assuredly vote for Hillary. I know many, many more. I can only wonder at my fellow dems who insist on using right wing talking points to attack Hillary.
If you do not support her, make it for reasns of policy.
Comment by Destini — October 10, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Here are some policies I don't support. Nationalized health care. That's the only issue she's definitive on. She's flip flopped on most every other one.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 10, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
Destini, could you please list her policies that you like?
Comment by Igor R. — October 10, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
Lanny,
Obama and Edwards do not have Hillary and Bill's past to contend with during the General election.
Sorry, but I honestly believe that once the GOP commercials start up after the primaries, American's will be reminded of those gosh awful days of the Monica stories, Bill's lies to camera and court, cigars, Impeachment trial, whitewater, travel gate, etc. etc..
They'll realize, although too late, that they really don't want to experience another 4-8 years of those media/gop attacks.
Comment by Connie Manes — October 11, 2007 @ 9:42 am
All the polls mean nothing, absolutely nothing right now. Talk to me in about nine months. If Clinton gets the nomination (and she still doesn't have a lock on it; Obama may still squeak through just like Carter did in 1976)just wait and see what the Republicans are going to do with her. John Kerry looked like he had a lot going for him in 2004 and then the general election came around, and look what happened to him. Clinton has a ton more baggage than Kerry ever did, so you can imagine what will be done to her. You think her negatives aren't high now? Just wait until September of 2008 (assuming she gets the nomination). Her negatives will go through the roof. It will be a hard sell, Lanny, a very hard sell.
Comment by Libertyship46 — October 11, 2007 @ 9:50 am
http://blogwonks.com/2007/10/10/is-extreme-hillary-makeover-working/
Comment by Igor R. — October 11, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Hi Igor, good article again.
Liberty, I agree with you on polls.
I agree RR, Destini is the first female that I have heard support Hillary Clinton.
Destini, Hillary supports military service for women, but she didn't serve in the military, and neither did her daughter. She voted for the war, and didn't read the security reports. She has been part of a do-nothing that matters congress that spends their time taking partisan votes that do not improve life for Americans. She promised every baby in America $5,000, then she changed her mind. Hillary has had plenty of time to display her problem solving techniques to America, as First Lady, as Senator, but what has she done? Promising money to every group is not helping America balance the budget. She is very popular with lobbyists, and that is a good policy, and it's not good for America. Hillary believes "it takes a village" and I believe that parents have to be responsible for their own children. Government programs are no substitute for parents acting as their children's first teachers. Hillary wants to raise taxes and create more government. When everyone is given the same, it destroys initiative by the individual, is called socialism. Hillary is for that program, and I know that's not good for America.
The good thing about her is that she can be beat by Rudy Giuliani. Rudy was a strong Mayor for America, and will protect and make America strong again.
Comment by Cheryl O — October 12, 2007 @ 12:06 am
Excellent post Cheryl.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 12, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
Cheryl, thanks! Let's not let this Marxist's "inevitability" go unchallenged.
Comment by Igor R. — October 12, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Now that Reports of Hillary using unwarranted wiretaps to control bimbo eruptions is known Do you think she would allow them in use to protect us from terrorist attacks??
Comment by robert d — October 16, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
Lanny, You are a good man and always CORRECT!I wish you could use your influence on shuting down Dick Morris and Saen Hannity for all the HATE they keep projecting about Senator Clinton our next President of these United States!!!!
The polls only tell a small % of what will happen in this election.America is so ready for a dedicated,capable strong leader here and around the World.Madame President Clinton is perfect to fulfill this need and all these losers blogging here should be ashamed of their pettiness and STAND UP and support the WINNER!!!
Comment by De — October 17, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
De, we do not hate Hillary, but we do hate what she stands for:
socialism. She disrespects the individual's freedom of choice to spend money rightfully earned (after taxes). She believes (and stands for )government taking more of our money "for the common good". I resent government making my choices in health, in money, or charity.
And there is much more to know about Mrs. Clinton locked up in her writings, even "anonymous" donations to the Clinton library.
Finally, please tell me her position on Iran. So far, I have watched her criticize other candidate positions on Iran, then take that same position. In disrespect to voters, she has taken every position! So, you tell me, since you are making such high recommendations for Mrs. Clinton. Only "losers" accept without question!
Comment by Cheryl O — October 18, 2007 @ 7:42 am
Lanny, I found the polling numbers very enlightening. I took you up on googling hillary clinton polarizing, to see the numbers for myself, but did not have the same distribution of hits across candidates. Would you mind posting the exact search terms you used? Thank you.
Comment by Scott D. — October 19, 2007 @ 1:45 am
Lanny
Give US a break. You have your litlle nose so far UP somebody's posterior that it kind of Obstructs any chance of you getting a clear and REAL vision… Hillary is Waffling, not stating any clear position on anything, has No Admisutrative experience, is so scripteed by the Leftoid Dweebs that even her Schrilly laughs are PHONY!
TRY some Objectivity once in a while.. It might do us good!
Comment by redhawk — October 30, 2007 @ 9:29 am