Kos vs. Clinton
In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Markos Moulitsas--the founder and proprietor of the Daily Kos, the granddaddy of all political blogs--explains why he thinks Hillary Clinton is not the right choice for the Democratic party in 2008. In laying out his normative case against Clinton, Kos also makes a compelling descriptive argument regarding her electoral chances, one that echoes what I've been saying to my friends and colleagues lately.
In short, to win the Democratic nomination you have to either be 1) perceived as being highly electable or 2) beloved by the Democratic base. But despite her fundraising prowess, Hillary is neither.
As the 2004 election illustrated, Democratic primary voters are willing to support a 'play it safe' establishment candidate *if* they are convinced that candidate is more electable than the rest of the field. John Kerry swept through the Democratic primaries based solely on his perceived electability. I can't say I have any polling data to back me up on this, but I seriously doubt that Clinton will be able to convince voters that she is more electable than, say, Mark Warner, John Edwards, or Wesley Clark.
So that leaves option 2, being beloved by the party base. Unfortunately for Clinton, she routinely comes in last or near last in online straw polls at sites like Daily Kos and MyDD. She appears to have almost no "netroots" support. Markos writes:
I think Markos is pretty clearly right about this. Based almost exclusively on internet donations, Howard Dean was able to rise from near total obscurity to being the front-runner for the nomination in 2003, shattering fundraising records in the process.
In this next election cycle, even more online money will flow to candidates, much of it steered by influential blogs like Daily Kos, and almost all of that money will go to Clinton's opponents. Whatever fundraising advantage she currently enjoys will begin to diminish rapidly as the primaries approach. And unlike John Kerry in 2004, Clinton will not be able to use "electability" as a fallback.
In light of these realities, it's somewhat puzzling to me that it took a blogger like Markos to point out the fundamental obstacles to Clinton's electoral ambitions. The traditional media insists on portraying her as the front-runner for the 2008 nomination. I suspect this is largely because they believe her nomination would make for a more compelling story line than the alternatives. I think they're secretly rooting for her to win, at least in the primaries.
But providing the media with compelling soap opera story lines will not be the top priority of Democratic voters in 2008. They want to win. And unless Hillary is able to convince them that she is a much stronger candidate than her rivals, which seems very unlikely to me, she's not going to win the nomination.
In short, to win the Democratic nomination you have to either be 1) perceived as being highly electable or 2) beloved by the Democratic base. But despite her fundraising prowess, Hillary is neither.
As the 2004 election illustrated, Democratic primary voters are willing to support a 'play it safe' establishment candidate *if* they are convinced that candidate is more electable than the rest of the field. John Kerry swept through the Democratic primaries based solely on his perceived electability. I can't say I have any polling data to back me up on this, but I seriously doubt that Clinton will be able to convince voters that she is more electable than, say, Mark Warner, John Edwards, or Wesley Clark.
So that leaves option 2, being beloved by the party base. Unfortunately for Clinton, she routinely comes in last or near last in online straw polls at sites like Daily Kos and MyDD. She appears to have almost no "netroots" support. Markos writes:
Money and star power go a long way, but the netroots
is now many times larger than it was only three years
ago, and we have attractive alternatives to back (and
fund), such as former governor Mark W. Warner and
Sen. Russell Feingold.
Just as we crazy political junkies glimpsed the viability
of the candidacy of an obscure governor from a small
New England state three years ago, today we regard
Hillary Clinton's candidacy as anything but inevitable.
Her obstacles are big, and from this vantage point,
possibly insurmountable.
I think Markos is pretty clearly right about this. Based almost exclusively on internet donations, Howard Dean was able to rise from near total obscurity to being the front-runner for the nomination in 2003, shattering fundraising records in the process.
In this next election cycle, even more online money will flow to candidates, much of it steered by influential blogs like Daily Kos, and almost all of that money will go to Clinton's opponents. Whatever fundraising advantage she currently enjoys will begin to diminish rapidly as the primaries approach. And unlike John Kerry in 2004, Clinton will not be able to use "electability" as a fallback.
In light of these realities, it's somewhat puzzling to me that it took a blogger like Markos to point out the fundamental obstacles to Clinton's electoral ambitions. The traditional media insists on portraying her as the front-runner for the 2008 nomination. I suspect this is largely because they believe her nomination would make for a more compelling story line than the alternatives. I think they're secretly rooting for her to win, at least in the primaries.
But providing the media with compelling soap opera story lines will not be the top priority of Democratic voters in 2008. They want to win. And unless Hillary is able to convince them that she is a much stronger candidate than her rivals, which seems very unlikely to me, she's not going to win the nomination.
posted by A.L. at 12:07 AM
13 Comments:
Unfortunately, although polls consistantly show McCain would win, and I really hope the polls are wrong, they show Clinton would come in second. But even at second she polls way higher than any other Dem. I'm pretty sure she'll be the candidate and will lose.
I think Markos is out of touch with the mainstream of the Democratic party. Despite what he thinks of her personally, she consistently polls the highest of any potential Democratic candidate, and is raising far and away the most money. That is nothing to dismiss. I also personally think she would make a fine President. Apparently I'm not alone.
Despite what he thinks of her personally, she consistently polls the highest of any potential Democratic candidate
I wouldn't put too much faith in those polls. She polls high because she has more name recognition, by far, than anyone else. At this point in the last election cycle Leiberman was polling really high, and for the same reason. Things are very dynamic now, especially with the 24 hour news cycle and the internet. Howard Dean rose from total obscurity to a point where he was topping every poll. Then, almost as quickly, he faded away.
I'm not nearly as down on Hillary substantively as Markos is. I think she would probably make a decent president. But I do think the media tends to overstate her chances of winning the nomination. She is a formidable force that her challengers will have to reckon with. But I think its more likely than not that someone else will be the nominee.
I think that Hillary would do better than Markos seems to think, for the simple reason that the presence of a woman running for president would galvanize female voters to an unprecedented degree. After two hundred plus years of white male presidents, I think it's impossible to understate how big a factor Hillary's status as a woman would be in informing the voting decision of women, both Republican and Democrat.
She's not my first choice-I'd much rather see Al Gore run-but I suspect Hillary would run a good campaign, would have a massive grassroots support from women who would feel empowered by the act of nominating her, and that she would probably make a fine president.
I have said it before and I will say it again - It is Feingold or no one for me. If he is not on the ticket then I will write him in and be done with it.
I would probably vote for a Gore/Feingold ticket but if the nomination goes to Hillary "anti flag burning amendment" Clinton then I will be tempted to vote for McCain out of spite. I am no longer willing to choose between the lesser of two evils and, if angry enough on voting day, I might choose the greater of two evils if that is my only choice.
If the liberals in this country can't raise their voice and demand the correct person for the job then the country is screwed anyway.
Hillary could make some significant noise, but I don't know about her actually being able to pull it off. Many of her constituents support her but, being one, I also know that a great many are still waiting for at least one campaign promise to become manifest. Tough call.
Because I changed my party affiliation after the cutoff date in '05, I personally am only able to vote in the Republican primary. Talk about past mistakes coming back to haunt you!
ender- At some point, you have to let the ends justify the means. If it takes Hillary posturing on an anti-flag burning amendment to get her into office (and that's all it is-posturing) and into a position where she can spearhead national health insurance, environmental legislation, or a whole host of other liberal issues, then that's what it takes. I haven't noticed any anti-gay marriage amendments getting passed, but I have noticed the conspicuous presence of George Bush in the White House.
You do what you have to do to get yourself in a position to govern.
I agree Sean.
And I'd like to add that first we need to stop the wholesale destruction of civil rights we are seeing under the control of Republicans.
Sean said...
ender- At some point, you have to let the ends justify the means.
You are kidding right? This is precisely what is wrong with this country. We no longer care about what is true or right. We care about appearances. You will never shift the debate back to reality if you play the "ends justify the means" game. Never. That is their game and by indulging in it yourself you admit defeat. We will simply sink further into the abyss.
Having Markos and his merry band of goons in opposition can only help Hillary's credibility with the responsible part of the electorate who actually elect presidents.
ender,
I care deeply about what is right and wrong. I also am aware of the fact that there are 24 million people in this country who do not believe in evolution, that there are enough people in this country who think that outlawing gay marriage is a reason to go to the polls, and that no matter what the substantive merits of the Democratic candidate, that much of the campaign will be spent combating Swift Boat attacks of one sort or another. The Republicans are thugs, they run thuggish, revolting campaigns, and they appeal to the very worst in voters. And I would be more than happy to leave them to it, only they've been winning one election after another.
If it means Hillary pretending she's all for anti-flag burning amendments so long as she's running for office and there are pictures of her burning an American flag out there-and those pictures will most assuredly come out come campaign time and could prove to be a decisive factor in how people vote-then that's fine. It's what she needs to do to win. And a Democrat needs to win. As a country we can't continue to sustain Republican rule- it's just been too damaging.
The bitter truth about politics is that people simply don't vote for the candidate they think is best. They subconsciously associate certain qualities to the candidates, pick the one who has the greatest appeal, and then think of reasons to justify their decisions. They pick people who seem brave or honest; whom they associate with leadership, possibility, or security; or whom everyone else thinks is best.
On that basis, Clinton's nomination is almost certain. Unlike Wesley Clark or Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton is a household name, and everyone knows it. This was true of Bush when he beat the more highly regarded McCain in 2000; for better or worse, it'll be true in 2008 with Clinton.
I agree with Alan. After 43 male Presidents of the US, it's about time a woman was elected. She's a good candidate, she'll be a good President and she will galvanise women voters. Others will turn out just to take part in a "historic election" who might not do so otherwise. She's the democrats best chance. Republicans have very little that they can fling at her at this stage, her move towards the centre was a wise one, it gives them less amunition and undermines the opposition. Maybe people on the left wont like it (I am on the left but a realist) but at the end of the day will be able to recognise it for what it really is at get out there and get behind the Democrat candidate.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home