Aug 13, 2007

Clinton a drag? Dems fear her negatives

Clinton a drag? Dems fear her negatives

By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 59 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

 
They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.

"I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag" on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.

Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator's campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination — despite privately held fears.

The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.

A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.

A strategist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Clinton.

"The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she's so damn unpopular," said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. "I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn't."

"Republicans are upset with their candidates," Arnold added, "but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls."

In national surveys, Clinton's lead over chief rival Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has widened. Her advantage is much narrower where it counts most — in early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire. In matchups against potential GOP presidential candidates, Clinton leads or is tied.

The Clinton campaign points to those figures to make a case for her electability in a constant stream of e-mails, letters and phone calls to jittery Democrats across the country. A key to their strategy is to give Clinton's candidacy a sense of inevitability despite her negative ratings, which aides insist will go down.

"All the negatives on her are out," said Clinton's pollster and strategist Mark Penn. "There is a phenomena with Hillary, because she is the front-runner and because she's been battling Republicans for so long, her unfavorability (rating) looks higher than what they will eventually be after the nomination and through the general election."

What the Clinton campaign doesn't say is that her edge over potential Republican candidates is much smaller than it should be, given the wide lead the Democratic Party holds over the GOP in generic polling.

The problem is her political baggage: A whopping 49 percent of the public says they have an unfavorable view of Clinton compared to 47 percent who say they hold her in high regard, according to a Gallup Poll survey Aug. 3-5.

Her negative ratings are higher than those of her husband, former President Clinton, former President George H.W. Bush and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry at the end of their campaigns.

A candidate's unfavorability scores almost always climb during campaigns. If the pattern holds, Clinton has a historically high hurdle to overcome.

"For Hillary, who has been on the scene for so long and has had perception of her so ground in ... there's no question it will be really hard for her to change perceptions," said Democratic pollster David Eichenbaum, who represents moderate Democrats in GOP-leaning states.

Her baggage is heaviest in those states. Private polling conducted in Colorado, for example, shows that Clinton's negative rating is 16 percentage points higher than her favorability score.

Colorado is a state Democrats hope to win in the 2008 presidential race. It also has an open Senate seat, with the Republican incumbent opting not to seek another term and Democrats targeting it.

Obama has much lower unfavorability ratings than Clinton, though Democrats say he may have his own problem — that of race. It's hard to measure the impact of being the first party to put a black at the top of the ticket, Democratic leaders said.

Some Democrats hold out hope that Clinton can turn things around.

"She's got a tough road to hoe because people have formed opinions of her," said Rep. Tim Mahoney, a freshman Democrat from Florida. "But I can and will tell you that when I see Hillary get out there with the public, she changes people's minds. She's not the stereotype that people know her to be."

In Indiana, where three freshman Democratic congressmen are fighting to retain their seats, Crooks said Clinton would be a burden in districts like his full of "gun-toting, bible-carrying, God-loving, church-attending" voters.

"She is just so polarizing," the state lawmaker said. Clinton would drag any candidate down 3 or 4 percentage points, he said.

"I'm one of these Democrats who has some legitimate reservations, because the Clintons have in the past invigorated the Republican base," said Carrie Webster, a leader in the West Virginia state House who served as executive director of the state party when Bill Clinton won the 1992 West Virginia primary.

"But the fact that so many prominent Democratic males are getting behind her at this early point makes me a little more confident that she could overcome some of the more obvious hurdles," she said.

Nebraska party chairman Matt Connealy said he believes Democratic candidates will be able to avoid a Clinton backlash.

"I probably would have given you a different answer a month ago," he said, "and maybe will give you a different answer a month from now."

___

Associated Press writers Kathy Barks Hoffman in Michigan, Marc Levy in Pennsylvania, Lawrence Messina in West Virginia, Steven K. Paulson in Colorado, Kelley Shannon in Texas and Mike A. Smith in Indiana contributed to this report.

"The Brownback campaign has been a vile little thing..."

Monday, August 13, 2007
Posted by: Dean Barnett  at 11:43 AM

So how much did this weekend's little event in Ames, Iowa matter? On the one hand, you had some guy at the Beauchamp Gazette gushing that "it's hard to overstate the significance of Huckabee's performance here" before predicting that Huckabee-mania would swamp the nation like a global-warming induced tsunami. On the other hand, you had analysts like John Podhoretz bluntly opining, "I hate to be nasty, but anybody who takes the Ames Straw Poll results seriously is an idiot. A bunch of people spent ludicrous amounts of money to bus-and-truck 14,000 people to a big picnic, and the guy who spent the most bought the win with a mammoth 4516 votes. Goshers! 4,516 votes."

Yes, unduly nasty, but his comments hit close to the mark. When all the frontrunners bailed on Ames except for Mitt Romney, the straw poll instantly became a freak show for fried-Twinkee craving political obsessives. Mitt Romney did what he had to do. He won and continued to show his commitment to Iowa. After McCain, Rudy and Fred decided not to attend, I bet the Romney campaign wouldn't have minded if the Ames people called the whole thing off. Would have saved a few bucks, and it's not like he needed the boost.

For those who say Romney's looking less juggernaut-ish than he did before Ames because of Huckabee's second place finish, I'd ask when precisely did the Romney campaign turn into a juggernaut. He's still a relatively obscure figure with roughly half the name recognition of Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton. As Hugh pointed out over the weekend, the Romney campaign has met every goal he has set. But the will goals get harder to reach to as the calendar progresses. Winning in Iowa once looked like a long shot for Romney. Not anymore. Winning in South Carolina and Florida still look tough. He's got to keep moving forward. I'm sure the campaign knows this. Mitt ain't exactly the presumptive nominee just yet.

ONCE AGAIN, GENERALLY SPEAKING, J-POD IS RIGHT. Since the Ames event wasn't competitive, it became a non-event. Does anyone who knows anything about Republican politics think Mike Huckabee has a chance to win this race? Republicans don't nominate inexperienced people; our least qualified nominee of the past 60 years was George W. Bush, and he had been Governor of a large state for 6 years and he had the proper bloodlines.

Huckabee seems like a great guy, and he's run a nice campaign, but his resume is too slight to get a seat at the top-tier table. Yes, he's been Governor of Arkansas; Republicans don't think the last experiment of electing someone with that background worked out particularly well. By the way, the resume-thing is the reason Duncan Hunter hasn't been able to break through, even though he's very impressive. In the eyes of the Republican electorate, he's just a congressman, and I can't remember someone with a background like that even seriously contending for the Republican nomination.

As far as the other candidates are concerned, the Ames results are also a non-event. You could say the results prove that Ron Paul isn't a serious candidate for the Republican nomination. But you know what? If Paul had won the straw poll with 80% of the vote on Saturday, his Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs campaign would still be a non-starter. Republicans aren't going to nominate Ron Paul for the presidency. We're not even going to consider it.

Some people say the fact that Brownback came in third means he can't get any traction. Really now - don't the facts that he hasn't raised any money or budged at all in any polls more strongly suggest what a failure his campaign has been? I know Patrick says the Brownback campaign has "rock stars like Leon Wolf and Billy Valentine running their e-efforts." Perhaps that shows the value of having "e-effort" rock stars. Campaigns are big things, and "e-efforts" remain a small part of the big picture. Even the best e-efforts can't overcome a terminally lame candidate.

The Brownback campaign has been a vile little thing, attacking other candidates from way back in the pack, violating the 11th Commandment constantly. Sam Brownback appears to be a deluded man, laboring under the impression that he actually has a chance in this race and that the ends therefore justify the means. Yes, the same Sam Brownback who switched his vote on McCain/Kennedy in a span of minutes to be on the winning side, an act caught for posterity on C-SPAN, actually thinks he has a chance to be the next President of the United States. It's nice that T. Thompson and Gilmoar dropped out, but Brownback has been the least distinguished member of the field. The race will benefit from his absence.

One could say that we should be thankful for Ames because it clarified some things. But for the last time, J-Pod is right. It was a non-event, and the campaign looks exactly the way it did on Friday. Rudy's the frontrunner, Romney's the strong second and Thompson's the wildcard. There's probably room in the top tier for another candidate, but none of the existing lower-tier candidates have the stuff to capitalize on the opportunity.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

NPR on Romney... or not...

Listening to NPR this morning and they mentioned T Thompson is out, but did not mention who won...

 

Interesting... perhaps they found out who cut the most Government jobs while in office (Mitt Romney) and are scared of him getting into office...

 

I think that is a great measure of who would be a good president... Who NPR least wants... I listen to NPR, but hate about 1/4 of what they do, and the way they do it...

 

I would be sad to see them go, but see no reason for Government support, and they pathetic attempts at sounding like a needed charity is very presumptuous...

 

What really galls me is the self righteous way they say they don't run commercials (they do) and so they don't have any bias. Well, yes, they get their money from somewhere, and so follow the money for NPR bias. PRO BIG GOVERNMENT BIAS!