« Necessity is the Mother of Pandering | Main | Hardballin' »

October 25, 2007

HIllary Hatin For Fun and (No) Profit

You know, maybe the McCain ad below has something to do with these poll results:

In an ominous sign for Republicans in the general election, almost 46% of respondents who say they are paying “a lot” of attention to the campaigns say they plan to participate in the Democratic primary, while only 36% say they will vote in the GOP contest. Among those paying “some” attention, 38% plan to vote in the Democratic contest, while only 34% plan to vote in the GOP primary.

This is a wild statement, but is it possible -- and I'm just saying possible, not even likely -- that centering the entire 2008 Republican primary around the subject of Hillary Clinton may have been, well, a mistake?

That's what Dave Weigel argues in a must-read piece in The American Conservative. Hillary isn't enough. Hillary hatred has worn itself out. Her name no longer fundraises, books about her no longer sell. The theory is she'll bring out the conservative base, but there's no real evidence. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is skipping on the issues. A new poll out of The LA Times shows Americans support Democrats 2:1 on health care, and a plurality believe that it's the government's responsibility to provide benefits. Worse for the GOP, Independents line up with Democrats here. In fact, they're the most likely to complain about "job lock" from the current system. "In all, 20% of independents said they or someone in their household were forced to stay in a job because it provided healthcare, compared with 13% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans." The Republican response here is to say Hillary supports socialized medicine.

It isn't enough.

October 25, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

almost 46% of respondents who say they are paying “a lot” of attention to the campaigns say they plan to participate in the Democratic primary, while only 36% say they will vote in the GOP contest.

This is especially striking considering how the results of the Democratic campaign are at least perceived to be much less in doubt.

Posted by: Jason C. | Oct 25, 2007 4:23:55 PM

Let's take another tack: does this affect the way we look at general election polls? If the polls screen for likelihood of voting, then the intensity gap will favor Democrats today. But will that intensity gap persist? No one knows.

Makes you think twice about those "Hillary can win Kentucky!" polls ...

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Oct 25, 2007 4:25:33 PM

The link to the Weigel article is incorrect -- is this the one you were referring to?

Posted by: Molly | Oct 25, 2007 5:38:38 PM

Has anyone recently polled on who the public believes is to blame for the failure in 1993 of Hillary's health care proposal? The answer would likely change over time, although it would be interesting to see in which direction.

My suspicion is that blame centers on Hillary far more inside-the-beltway than outside. I base this in part on the particular criticisms that have been leveled, many of which involve her (then) political instincts. I don't see such criticisms carrying the same weight 15 years later, especially among non-policy wonks.


Posted by: Ryan | Oct 25, 2007 5:42:29 PM

The Republican game plan has always been to amplify their partisan narratives with direct, state, or quasi-state actions for political advantage. 2002, AUMF, Democrats weak on security is one example.

HRC has pretty much inoculated herself against foreign policy/military/security attacks, so watch the economy. If Bernanke, Wall St etc manage to crash the US into a major recession by next fall, what kind of solutions will HRC offer?

She has already proposed eliminating the student loan program. Keeping her base at home would be as good as turning out their own.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Oct 25, 2007 6:08:04 PM

Here's an interesting observation, I've been looking on the leftward leaning blogs regarding just who they think will use their money best to help the Wildfire
victims and guess what.

Liberal blogs link to PRIVATE CHARITIES AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS to give money.

I couldn't find any liberal blog that pointed fellow liberals to a government site to donate money. Now I didn't have time to seach em all, but I just thought it was amusing.

Its funny that in times of such great need, liberals look to the private sector to spend their charitable money, apparenetly they think its best.

Posted by: Patton | Oct 25, 2007 6:14:32 PM

Personally I didn't know the federal government took donations. I thought they got their trillions from taxes. I'm not quite sure why you find all this ironic Patton.

Posted by: mad6798j | Oct 25, 2007 6:24:03 PM

is "Hillary Hatred" on the right the new version of "Bush Hatred" on the left?

Can we please start a meme that McCain and Giuliani are suffering from "Hillary Derangement Syndrome"?

Posted by: Frank | Oct 25, 2007 6:33:28 PM

1) With the fifth wingnut justice and control of ME Oil at stake, Republicans are not going to lose '08. That's why they have so many candidates, because they expect to win. There haven't been this many candidates since 1980.

2)Rovian strategy has always been to attack the opposition at the opposition's strengths. Max Cleland & John Kerry supposedly were unassailable on security. What is HRC's strength(and vulnerability)? The economy, and socialistic central planning as the point-of-attack?
But they will use the war as a wedge issue also.

Forget Edwards, he is not getting the nomination, but if he did during a recession, I wouldn't be shocked to see people like DeLong & Thoma endorse the opposition.

3) They won't crash the economy to win an election? The party willing to kill millions and a country to win a few Senate seats? Of course they would. The hedge traders would make the money back five-fold under Guiliani.

And expect to watch the inauguration of Guiliani. Y'all will blame HRC and the DC establishment.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Oct 25, 2007 6:33:46 PM

Patton,

First off, mad6798j pointed out that the feds don't accept donations. They certainly don't take directed donations (for example: I would like this $1000 to go towards victims of the SoCal wildfires.)

Secondly, this administration has certainly convinced me that they have their heads up their collective you-know-where when it comes to disaster relief (see: Katrina, Hurricane). So yes, if it comes down to believing in a private organization vs. a government run by people who don't believe in the ability of government to do anything but blow people up, those capable of rational thought will end up believing a well-run private organization will be better than a government run by disinterested warmongers.

Now, do you want to get into a more general conversation about whether or not a well-run government could do better than a well-run private organization in this field? That's an actual conversation worth having, as opposed to this immature gotcha-style silliness.

Posted by: David S | Oct 25, 2007 7:18:07 PM

First, David and mad, the government certainly does take donations. Don't you remember those sweet kids that raised money during the Clinton years to pay off the deficit. They owed no taxes and Clinton gladly accepted the money.

Second, are you telling me government is some big behemoth, impersonl beast that can't even figure out how to collect and direct the collected money?

And DavidS, while your playing gotcha, you forgot to blame Bush for global warming and genital warts..

Ohh, no wonder you won't donate to it and prefer the private sector.

Posted by: Patton | Oct 25, 2007 7:37:31 PM

""" well-run government ""

Hey look, DavidS made a funny oxymoron..

I bet you still believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny and Evolution....

Posted by: Patton | Oct 25, 2007 7:43:04 PM

Why do we not hear the ONE MAIN reason we need Hillary as the Democrat nominee.

The Democrats are having huge problems explaining to people why Hillary is uniquely qualified to be President. And the answer is right in front of you and is a liberal Democrat core belief, worshipped by the left for decades.

Considering she's never held an executive position, her main legislative initiative having a Democrat President and Congress behind it went to in flames that her party wouldn't even support, and her main qualification is her perceived put upon womenhood by Bill giving the stiffy to the interns kids.

HILLARY IS THE PERFECT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CANDIDATE!

With barack by her side they'll be unstoppable.

I can see the bumbper stickers now:

WE DON'T NEED EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS, JUDGE US ON OUR SEX AND COLR!!

Take the message to the people!

Posted by: Patton | Oct 25, 2007 7:49:47 PM

Patton,

I wouldn't compliment your humour by terming it sophomoric. Moronic and racist seem more apt.

Posted by: A Canadian Reader | Oct 25, 2007 8:09:34 PM

> First off, mad6798j pointed out that the
> feds don't accept donations.

The donation coupon in on the inside front cover of every IRS instruction booklet.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer | Oct 25, 2007 8:31:16 PM

Well, if the polls at this stage mean anything, it is that the Dems have the wind at their back.

Now they need some fighting spirit and backbone. I suggest a continuous replay of the Lyndon Johnson tv against Goldwater. (girl pulling daisy apart while nuke explodes in background).

If Hillary can't beat Johnson's win of 44 states (61% of vote), then the Dems need to hang up the jockstrap and panty-briefs. But, renew your passport, just in case Rudy wins.

Posted by: JimPortandOR | Oct 25, 2007 9:10:04 PM

Now they need some fighting spirit and backbone.

In other words, get ready for a frustrating loss next November.

I wonder if the need for strong primary challengers to get rid of certain Dems - and shake the others up - outweighs the need to oppose the GOP's plans for this country. It seems to me that taking the government out of the hands of GOP bums and putting it into the hands of Democratic bums isn't such a great strategy.

Posted by: Stephen | Oct 25, 2007 9:46:45 PM

I wonder if the need for strong primary challengers to get rid of certain Dems - and shake the others up - outweighs the need to oppose the GOP's plans for this country.

Perhaps so, but the problem is that the biggest Democratic party bums are -- not coincidentally -- those with the most secure positions (eg, Feinstein).

The important thing is to get a group of candidates in office who are beholden to us, not to Rahm Emmanuel or Harold Ford or any other party power-broker.

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 25, 2007 9:58:15 PM

"job lock" is a huge issue for a lot of folks here in the Midwest - the number one reason why more people aren't moving out of crappy jobs and starting new businesses is because they don't want to gamble on their ability to keep health insurance for their families. Get some real stability and security for folks in the health care arena and you'll see some big moves in the entrepreneurial direction (which, of course, is why Big Business HATES the idea - anything that diminishes their lock on talent and opens them up to potential competitors is something to be hated, feared, and sicced on by their bought and paid for politicos).

And Ryan - I'd like to see those polls too. Because from what I've heard from my right-of-center family members here in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky, the perception NOW is that the health care plan in the 90s was killed by Republicans and greedy health insurance companies and that maybe if they hadn't been so greedy we'd have a working system right now. I almost fell out of my chair when my wife's fairly Republican uncle started griping about "shortsighted health insurance companies who couldn't tell what was good for them" the other week.

Posted by: NonyNony | Oct 25, 2007 10:46:15 PM

Jim.O.P,

I agree with most of what you write, but never more than this comment:

"Well, if the polls at this stage mean anything, it is that the Dems have the wind at their back.

Now they need some fighting spirit and backbone. I suggest a continuous replay of the Lyndon Johnson tv against Goldwater. (girl pulling daisy apart while nuke explodes in background).

If Hillary can't beat Johnson's win of 44 states (61% of vote), then the Dems need to hang up the jockstrap and panty-briefs. But, renew your passport, just in case Rudy wins." - JimPortandOR | Oct 25, 2007

Posted by: S Brennan | Oct 25, 2007 11:54:41 PM

I almost fell out of my chair when my wife's fairly Republican uncle started griping about "shortsighted health insurance companies who couldn't tell what was good for them" the other week.

Anecdotally, I, too, have heard longtime Republican partisans saying, "screw this, we need a national health care system." That said, it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out, come November 2008, that "we need to torture more people" has more emotional resonance to voters than "we need better health coverage solutions."

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 26, 2007 12:08:04 AM

But cranky, you can't choose that after each individual disaster, you do that once a year at tax time. Patton's point was that most liberals in the past week have devoted their charity money towards private charities rather than the federal government.

Posted by: mad6798j | Oct 26, 2007 12:28:36 AM

The Republican National Committee has cooked up a gimmick for Halloween. They want people to vote for the "Scariest Democrat". Oh, I'm so frightened!

No one will be surprised to learn that the website has Hillary Clinton winning the contest in a walk. [Link]

Posted by: Zeno | Oct 26, 2007 1:44:34 AM

Zeno,

It only makes sense.

Stealing FBI files, no warrant searches, illegal wiretapping, pilfering peoples private government personnel records, etc.

That's a pretty scarry candidate.

Posted by: Patton | Oct 26, 2007 4:34:02 AM

Surely the Republican gang-bang on Hillary is distasteful to many women, and helps explain her increased support there.

Posted by: bob h | Oct 26, 2007 8:32:07 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.