As I mentioned in another thread, I sometimes browse conservative blogs to get a sense of what the other side of the aisle is talking about. A factoid here that came up while discussing a separate issue got my attention:
So I wonder… Hillary Clinton doubtlessly know these numbers. How is she planning to overcome them? How should she? For that matter, how relevant are these “negatives”? Is she truly “unelectable” with them?
Here’s an analysis of the possible effects of Hillary’s high negative numbers by Gallup.
Basic gist for those that don’t want to read the ariticle: it’s far from the death sentence for her campaign that is sometimes suggested, both because ultimately successful campaigns have suffered similarily high negative numbers (notably Bill Clinton in '92) and because negative numbers are pretty variable over the course of a campaign, so she has plenty of opportunity to improve her numbers.
Interesting you brought that up, because Captain Ed says that the main reason why her husband succeeded in '92 was because of the presence of Ross Perot. Without a Perot equivalent in next year’s race, would Bill’s experience be relevant?
Why, Hillary could have the lowest approval ratings of a presidential candidate since Bush ran in 2004! They look to be neck-and-neck.
Seriously, this bluster about someone being unelectable because of negatives in the 40s is a point to consider, but not for too long. The question in November 2008 will not be, “Do you want Hillary Clinton to be the next President?” It will be, “Who are you more willing to hold your nose and vote for: Hillary or Guiliani/McCain/Romney/Thompson?” For every candidate who isn’t in a cakewalk, the point to remember is that candidates have to make the election a choice between you and how you define the other candidate.
So who is the Republican who is going to defeat her? Guiliani with a 45% disapproval rating and a net +4? McCain with a -3? Romney with a -4? Thompson with a +6 and 20% don’t know about him? These guys can run a good race, but Hillary is already beating them all in the head to heads – with the closest margin being against Mean Ol’ Man McCain.
If this Captain Ed fellow is correct that nobody can be elected a first term president with those kind of negatives, then perhaps Wavy Gravy may finally see his candidate win after more than 40 years of running: Nobody.
I’m sure someone will be in here shortly with the usual cites about how Perot voters didn’t disproportionately hurt Bush in '92.
But in anycase, talking point “lowest negatives in history” is false, and one only has to go back four elections to find a non-incumbent with negatives that high, and one election to find an incumbent with similar numbers (and I’d argue that Hillary is in many ways more similar to an incumbent, in that she’s well known to the public). The article doesn’t look at anyone before '92, but I suspect we could find more cases if we went back further.
I wonder what percentage of those negatives are from liberals? If it’s all from conservatives it’s probably not a problem for her. But I get the impression she’s been losing a lot of support from liberals, especially after she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. All the liberal talk-show hosts I listen to are now critical of Hillary.
It’s also interesting to see that in the match-up, Edwards is doing better than Hillary against every Republican candidate. He’s doing better than Obama against most Republicans too. Somebody remind me why Edwards isn’t considered the front-runner?
Let me be the first to respond directly to the OP’s question.
I think if she apologized for her “vast right-wing conspiracy” comment that would go a long way towards reducing negatives. At the time she said it I was a registered Dem, mostly libertarian, and had no feelings about her. But I was angry, even contemptuous towards Bill about his obstruction of justice. So that comment was very stupid and very hurtful to me. I’ve disliked her since.
And while she’s at it she should apologize for the bigger issue of enabling Bill’s abuse of women.
Her biggest asset will be having a republican opponent. Against an independent like Ross Perot, her negatives might be a factor, but rupublicans have a whole platform of negatives to campaign against.
Every major poll has her well ahead of any of the current GOP candidates. Sounds like she’s electable then, don’t it?
This whole “Hillary is unelectable” meme is driving me nuts. I’m not even a big fan but trust me she is an excellent campaigner. She’s the likely dem candidate and the Pubs underestimate her at their peril.
I would say to Hillary that she should try to soften her image by laughing more. For example, every time a reporter asks her a serious question she doesn’t feel comfortable answering, she should laugh hysterically.
Yeah, that would help.
It’s called a cackle. 
It’s way too early to worry about stuff like this. Like **Ravenman **said, the only way her negatives matter is when she’s paired up against a particular Pubbie. And then things change. So far, she has run an almost flawless campaign. I think that counts a lot more. Obama has to get something going…
Which is kind of crazy when you think about it. I imagine the average non-New Yorker American has basically heard two main things about Rudy Gulliani, both in his favor: he kept NYC together during 9/11 and helped fight the cities crime epidemic. Hillary, on the other hand, has had both her good and bad points ingrained into the public conciousness for more then a decade. If he wins his parties nomination, then the Dems will be sure the public knows more about his negative qualities, but the fact that Hillary still holds her own against him beforehand bodes well for her electibility and certainly isn’t what I would’ve predicted.
Cite Please? Because you say it, does not make it true:
http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/democrats-vs-republicans/hillary-clinton-rudy-giuliani-matchup-polls.html
Jim
The best way for Hillary Clinton to overcome her negatives would be to convert to Hinduism.
Please explain…
My guess is a reincarnation joke.
I think those who cite polls for the proposition that HC is electable need to consider the electoral votes issue. Or said another way, give some thought to the source/demographics of her negatives.
Bush beat Kerry by 34 electoral votes. The only states that went for Kerry were in the Northeast, upper/urban Midwest, or Pacific coast. See here: CNN.com Election 2004 - U.S. President
Assume HC takes every state that Kerry did, a proposition that seems likely to me. In fact, I could easily see her beating Kerry’s numbers in many of these states. But so what? She still needs more to win. Which means she needs to pick up one or more states in the rural midwest*, the south, or the non-coastal west.
My sense is that Hillary-haters tend to be concentrated in those states. Now, that might not matter if the Republicans choose a poor candidate, or one who runs a bad campaign. But failing that, I think HC has some electability issues, even if one accepts that her overall polling numbers are good.
*The one exception here is Ohio, which qualifies as upper/urban Midwest in my mind. If HC carries Ohio, then I could see her pulling it off. Otherwise, I have a tougher time.
The electoral vote issue is a proper thing to address, but even there things art murky.
Ohio is certainly in play, just as it usually is these days, again so is Florida. Possibly Wisconsin. And more importantly Virginia, with its 13 EV has been trending blue ever since the 2004 election bringing in a Senator and Governors that are conservative democrats. With Mark Warner, an immensely popular ex-Governor running for Senate you can expect a high turnout of blue-voters in Virginia in 2008. So Virginia is definitely in play.
the last several Presidential contest have come down to one or two swing states. And this one will be no different. Whichever candidate can swing a few more of those their way will win all the marbles.