A little evidence supporting the point I made earlier in the week has come in:
Earlier today, Howard Wolfson, the communications director for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, said in a memo: “As [Clinton strategist] Mark Penn likes to say, people always ask ‘can Hillary win?’ but he has never had this asked of someone who is already winning. This week’s national polls underscore that observation.”
But those polls only tell part of the story. According to a new Mason-Dixon survey, given exclusively to NBC/MSNBC and McClatchy newspapers, Clinton is the only major presidential candidate — either Democrat and Republican — for whom a majority of likely general election voters say they would not consider voting. In addition, she’s the only candidate who registers with a net-unfavorable rating.
In the poll, 48% say they would consider voting for Clinton versus 52% who say they wouldn’t. By comparison, majorities signal they would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates: Giuliani (64%-36%), Fred Thompson (62%-38%), Bloomberg (61%-39%), Obama (60%-40%), Edwards (59%-41%), McCain (58%-42%), Biden (57%-43%), Richardson (57%-43%), Huckabee (56%-44%), and Romney (54%-46%).
Moreover, 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while 42% say they recognize her unfavorably. By contrast, every other candidate has a net-positive favorable rating: Giuliani (43%-17%), Obama (36%-21%), McCain (33%-28%), Edwards (32%-28%), Thompson (25%-12%), Romney (24%-20%), Biden (21%-20), Bloomberg (20%-18%), Richardson (19%-15%), and Huckabee (16%-12%).
The poll was taken of 625 likely general election voters from June 23-25, and has a margin of error of +/- 4%.
Since the finding is within the margin of error, I suppose it’s reasonable to be a little skeptical and it’s still a long way until election day. But consider this: Hillary Clinton’s name recognition is practically 100%, most likely voters have made up their minds already, and a year’s worth of campaigning for the nomination is unlikely to improve her negatives. I expect things to go down from here.
However, the strategy of sucking all the air (and money) out of the room and creating a sense of inevitability is proceeding quite well. I have no doubt that, barring some catastrophe, she’ll get the nomination. And that Democratic Party activists will convince themselves that she’s the best possible candidate and a shoo-in. And then wonder in December 2008 what went wrong.
Well, looked at a few days later Hillary’s campaign does NOT look inevitable. She’s failing to “[suck] all the … money” out of the room, as Obama’s campaign coffers can attest.
Regardless, Hillary doesn’t need to get 50% of the electorate to vote for her – she just needs to get a pluarailty of the vote in an electoral majority of states to vote for her. Any number of independent runs could help in that regard.
Also, lower turnout because of disgust with both parties could help considerably. As a Republican, for example, I can’t find any compelling reason to go out in vote for Republican’s in 2008. There’s a lost of time between now and then to convince me to vote, but I find it increasingly likely that I will sit this next one out. (And I’m getting that same vibe from the Republican’s I know IRL.) That could also help Hillary.
Finally, for the record, Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the vote in either 1992 or 1996. In fact, if one counts all eligible voters, not just votes cast, he failed to get 25% of the electorate to vote for him on either occasion. (I haven’t checked the 2000 election, but these same numbers probably apply to both Gore and Bush in 2000. I just don’t remember what the turnout numbers were like that year and don’t feel like digging through the FEC website at the moment.)
Hillary’s past the expiry date.