# Will Hillary's negative campaigning further divide the democratic party? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 14, 2008, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590 "2008-02-14T14:23:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/21 "2008-02-14T16:13:39Z")
Most of the primary voters - and party members overall - would vote for either candidate. There are real divisions, but most of them are overshadowed by agreement on the basic issues. This ad isn’t a particularly big deal, and if things go the way I think they will, where former Clinton voters are going to move over to Obama, her campaign style won’t be a big deal. If she starts saying really inflammatory stuff, yes, that might be a problem, but we’re not there yet. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/22 "2008-02-14T16:16:13Z")
**Phlosphr** it all depends on how they compete. Or at least the anti-HRC vote is no greater than it has been and the anti-Obama vote is not a major factor now and is unlikely to be one later. If she somehow is competitive in the pledged delegate count after Mar 4 (a dozen or so) then they can compete with mutual respect and continue to slog it out to near the Convention so long as they constantly increasingly transition to a focus of getting one of them in in November. It may help as they’ll dominate the news cycles. OTOH if one or the other has a clear mandate by then as represented by pledged delegates the other will be just dividing the party. Any negativity as the general gets closer is divisive. The powers that be will give her a chance to demonstrate a miracle on March 4 (even though she did do quite well in math, she does need a miracle there) but barring that the she will only look pathetic for staying at it after that and the supers will make that known. She needs to win both and in my assessment win both big to stay in the game. ---
**Author:** ![Slypork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@Slypork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slypork)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/23 "2008-02-14T16:23:04Z")
[QUOTE=Phlosphr] Perhaps I’m misremembering but Hillary Clinton did what for us in the 90’s??? [/QUOTE] She warned us about the vast right-wing conspiracy, she stood by her philandering, womanizing husband, she proposed “Hillarycare”, she told us that it takes a village and she declared, “We are the president.” I’m impressed! 😉 Seriously, though, her efforts to get involved in politics during Bill’s presidency made me feel like we had Evita Peron in DC. Maybe she had good intentions but she didn’t come across as someone who wanted to help but more as someone who wanted to tell us what to do. Eleanor Roosevelt and Rosalynn Carter were advocates for causes and worked hard to make changes but they never came across as abrasive or demanding. In fact, outside of Nancy Reagan, I can’t think of a recent First Lady that made such a negative impression on people. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/24 "2008-02-14T16:26:02Z")
[QUOTE=Jophiel] I’m not defending her, just reciting popular rhetoric. [/QUOTE] Ok I gotcha. **DSeid** That’s what I was looking for. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/25 "2008-02-14T16:32:30Z")
[QUOTE=Jophiel] If Clinton wins, I think the _party_ will unite behind her but she’ll lose the young voters and independents who want Obama because he’s Obama, not because he’s a Democrat. That’s the reason I think she’d lose the general. [/QUOTE] The party will not unite behind her if she uses superdelegates to win after losing the overall delegate count from caucuses/primaries. It will seem like she’s been picked by elitists and that her nomination is the will of the Democratic Clinton Machine, not the will of actual Democrats. I don’t think the ads are going to hurt anything. Her rhetoric about being willing to use what the NY Times calls [“potentially incendiary steps”](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14delegates.html?hp) in order to win could be a problem, though. Hopefully it’ll just cause her to lose and not affect anything overall. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/26 "2008-02-14T16:33:12Z")
[QUOTE=Shayna] While Obama was _in_ Wisconsin answering questions about what he would do for the people in that state, Hillary was in Texas wooing _them_, having her campaign issue statements about how they don’t expect to win any more states until March 4th, and running \*[this\* ad](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzGbj_ERlJ0) in Wisconsin. Contradictory much? :dubious: [/QUOTE] God, I hate to defend Hillary, but that’s not much of a negative campaign ad. Seems pretty mild to me, but I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder. BTW, I’ve already cast my CA vote (for Obama). I don’t much care for Hillary, but I could see myself voting for her in the general, even though I’d prefer Obama. Hillary vs McCain will be a tough choice, though. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s a fairly common position for independent voters (I’m not registered with either party, and vote across party lines all the time). ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/27 "2008-02-14T16:47:00Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] God, I hate to defend Hillary, but that’s not much of a negative campaign ad. Seems pretty mild to me, but I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder. [/QUOTE] I agree, the Wisconsin add is pretty mild by the standards of Clinton’s campaigning so far. I think the “He has no plan for universal health care” line she’s using now is a little dirtier. He has a plan, she just thinks it will leave people out and he doesn’t. That’s like saying “she has no plan on the economy” just because Obama thinks that a “foreclosure freeze” is vague and nonsensical. Her line is a way of intentionally misleading voters. As for the OP, I don’t think any negative campaigning on her part will ruin the party. I do think seating MI would do so. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/28 "2008-02-14T16:49:59Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] As for the OP, I don’t think any negative campaigning on her part will ruin the party. I do think seating MI would do so. [/QUOTE] Let’s hope it doesn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/29 "2008-02-14T17:13:56Z")
[QUOTE=Jophiel] But Obama is more of a blank slate on the economy compared to Senator Clinton’s “I was First Lady durin’ the rockin’ 90s” edge. [/QUOTE] I know you were just repeating the “talking points,” but I’ll respond anyway. . . Yeah, the rockin’ ‘90s that didn’t give us the universal healthcare she tried shoving down congress’s throat and was the beginning of their hatred of her, and the rockin’ ‘90s that saw the [repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html) by her husband, that some say is what opened the door to our current mortgage crisis? Those rockin’ '90s? > [@](#): > > As the push for new legislation heats up, lobbyists quip that raising the issue of financial modernization really signals the start of a fresh round of political fund-raising. Indeed, in the 1997-98 election cycle, the finance, insurance, and real estate industries (known as the FIRE sector), spends more than $200 million on lobbying and makes more than $150 million in political donations. Campaign contributions are targeted to members of Congressional banking committees and other committees with direct jurisdiction over financial services legislation. > > After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic. > > On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill’s effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear. > > On Oct. 22, Weill and John Reed issue a statement congratulating Congress and President Clinton, including 19 administration officials and lawmakers by name. The House and Senate approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month. If she wants to claim any credit for those years, she’d better be willing to accept an equal proportion of blame, as well. And from **Knorf’s** link: > [@](#): > > Mrs. Clinton’s aides said they would also argue to superdelegates that they should give less deference to a lead from Mr. Obama because much of that had been built up in states where there were caucuses, which tend to attract far fewer voters than primaries, where Mrs. Clinton has tended to do better than she has done in caucuses. > > “I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s senior campaign adviser. The _quality_ of where the win _comes from_? Are they _serious_? I simply cannot fathom the level of arrogance. Because Clinton doesn’t do as well in that _kind_ of election, we should consider those states lesser _quality_? I really, really hate that woman. ---
**Author:** ![Slypork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@Slypork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slypork)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/30 "2008-02-14T17:44:07Z")
[QUOTE=Shayna] And from **Knorf’s** link: The _quality_ of where the win _comes from_? Are they _serious_? I simply cannot fathom the level of arrogance. Because Clinton doesn’t do as well in that _kind_ of election, we should consider those states lesser _quality_? I really, really hate that woman. [/QUOTE] From [The Onion](http://www.theonion.com/content/whitehousewar/glossary) > [@](#): > > • delegate > A demented, often screaming individual who experiences intense arousal at the sight of a vertically printed placard bearing his or her state’s name. > > • electoral college > A process by which the number of states in the Union is narrowed down to the most important seven or eight. > > • political philosophy, liberal > An ideology steeped in a proud tradition of ineffectual whining. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/31 "2008-02-14T17:48:01Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] God, I hate to defend Hillary, but that’s not much of a negative campaign ad. Seems pretty mild to me, but I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder. [/QUOTE] I’ll take it one step further: if that’s the worst it gets between them, then this contest is a fucking _lovefest_ compared to most primary contests. I mean, the ad is centered around factual differences: Hillary wants to debate in Wisconsin, and Obama doesn’t; Hillary’s healthcare plan covers everyone, and Obama’s doesn’t (sorry, **Richard Parker** , but that’s the consensus opinion outside the Obama camp); and Hillary wants to do something to prevent foreclosures that Obama doesn’t. Hell, one of the three is even a _substantive_ factual difference. That’s the sort of thing candidates _should_ be going on about. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/32 "2008-02-14T17:48:38Z")
[QUOTE=DSeid] **Bridget** most Democratic leaders anyway fear that a bitter fight to the end would hurt whichever one actually won. They will work to avoid that. As to the difference between the two - yes HRC’s support is more among the stable rank and file and are less likely to be negatively affected by such, and Obama’s is more among both the potential swing voters and newly energized but often stayed home before. [/QUOTE] OK. But I’m not personally close the the “Democratic leaders.” Where can I read more about their fears? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/33 "2008-02-14T17:59:22Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Hillary’s healthcare plan covers everyone, and Obama’s doesn’t (sorry, **Richard Parker** , but that’s the consensus opinion outside the Obama camp). [/QUOTE] Consensus? If you really believe that, you’re not paying attention. I know Paul “Grudge” Krugman doesn’t like the plan, but he’s not the only economics expert around. Robert Reich, who I happen to respect quite a bit (along with many progressives), had this to say: > [@](#): > > A mandate may not make much difference anyway. Columbia University professor Sherry Glied and her colleagues investigated health-insurance mandates now in place in Switzerland and the Netherlands. They report in the November-December issue of Health Affairs that mandates can, but don’t always, increase coverage. Whether they do depends on the cost of complying with them and the penalties for not doing so. Overall, they found, the effects of mandates largely reinforced existing high levels of coverage. Switzerland now enjoys near-universal coverage, but this reflects only a tiny increase over the rate of coverage before it was mandated, when over 98% of population had mostly voluntary coverage. Aside from disagreements among experts, her charge is also false because it changes the definition of UHC. She may think mandated coverage is a better policy, but that doesn’t mean it is the _sine qua non_ of UHC–it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/34 "2008-02-14T23:19:49Z")
[QUOTE=Jophiel] > [@Shayna](#): > > By the way, you can read Senator Obama’s Economic Policy Address in Janesville, [here](http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/Cmzm). Has anyone seen any analysis or reaction to it? All I’ve seen was a Wall Street Journal piece griping that, if you pick out the “hope” messages, what’s left is a downer (which should seem obvious that if you pick all the tomatos out of your salad, you’re left with lettuce). But no reaction to the actual economic policies or plans laid forth. [/QUOTE] Bloomberg weighed in on it today. > [@](#): > > [http://wcbstv.com/campaign08/bloomberg.federal.government.2.654315.html](http://wcbstv.com/campaign08/bloomberg.federal.government.2.654315.html) > > His tirade against the candidates and the economic stimulus package on Thursday began when he was asked how that experiment is going. > > In his answer, he praised Democrat Barack Obama for the plan the Illinois senator outlined on Wednesday that would create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama projects it could generate nearly 2 million jobs. > > Last month, Bloomberg and Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania announced a coalition that would urge more investment in infrastructure. > > “I don’t know whether Senator Obama looked to see what I’ve been advocating, or not – you’ll have to ask him – but he’s doing the right thing,” Bloomberg said. ---
**Author:** ![JohnnieEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dfb087/32.png) [@JohnnieEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnnieEnigma)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/35 "2008-02-14T23:22:17Z")
[QUOTE=Bridget Burke] Do you “fear” that Obama’s winning the nomination will cause Hillary supporters to vote Republican? I don’t. What divisions in the party are being worsened by primary season? [/QUOTE] No, they couldn’t! The democratic party is very much united and when it comes right down to voting, they will support their own. And don’t forget, Obama has the support of a good majority of Independents, and yes, even Republicans. I can guarantee you that Hillary would never have the vote of independents and especially republicans. No way in hell. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590/36 "2008-02-14T23:51:11Z")
FWIW, Obama has issued an [ad responding to Clinton’s](http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/02/14/obama_debate/index.html). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillarys-negative-campaigning-further-divide-the-democratic-party/437590.md?page=1)