Why Do So Many Smart People Insist on Ignoring Clinton's Obvious Deficiencies as a General Election Candidate?

Count me with Hilzoy in seconding this sentiment from Jonathan Chait:

In the Washington Post yesterday, Paul Starr argued that it's really difficult to determine whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would fare better in a general election. Ezra Klein made the same point, as did Kevin Drum. I find this maddening.

Look, it's obviously true that any guess about general election viability is speculative. You're predicting a future event, and you could be wrong. I think the New England Patriots would have a better chance of beating the New York Giants than would the Detroit Lions, but I can't be sure.

That said, the available data here is not very ambiguous. Hillary Clinton is a highly unpopular figure. In the last Gallup survey, 50% of respondents have a favorable view of her, and 46% negative. Sometimes her averages goes higher, but sometimes it veers into negative territory. Obama has very high ratings. In the most recent poll, 59% view him favorably, 32% negatively. The difference between plus 4 and plus 27 is enormous--a Detroit Lions v. New England Patriots-size gap.

On top of that, independents who vote in the primaries and caucuses have shown a very strong preference for Obama over Clinton. That is the closest available approximation of a swing voter. (Some Clinton supporters have pointed to her strength among lower-income Democrats in the primary, but a low-income Democratic primary voter is not the same thing as a working class swing voter.)

In 2000, Clinton ran five points behind Al Gore in the state of New York, and it's not like Gore was the most popular politician who ever lived. That's who she is--a figure who is disliked by pretty much everybody who isn't a sure-fire Democrat, and even some people who are. You can imagine Obama running a horrible general election campaign and becoming less popular. No doubt his favorable ratings would drop a bit in the face of Republican attacks, as would hers. But for him to become as unpopular as Clinton already is--without months of nation-side attack ads--is a worst-case scenario.

It's entirely possible Clinton could win if given a favorable environment and/or a sufficiently weak opponent. (Whether she could bring along as many Democratic Senators and Representatives is more doubtful, which is why so many red state Democrats are endorsing Obama.) And I'm not saying electability has to be a first-order consideration--if you think Clinton would be a much better president than Obama and are willing to accept a higher risk of a Republican winning, then go for it.

That so many Democrats think this question is complicated suggests to me that maybe people aren't good at assessing the popularity of their co-partisans. To Democrats, it's perfectly obvious that the strongest Republican nominee is John McCain. He polls very highly, everybody knows Democrats and Independents who like him, and so on. But Republicans are constantly debating this. You see Republicans spinning horror scenarios of a McCain nomination leading to a splintering base or depressed turnout. To Democrats it's bewildering that they even debate this. Lots of Republicans feel the same way about the Clinton/Obama electability debate.

I couldn't agree more. As Chait points out, it is impossible to predict the future. But that doesn't change the fact that every relevant metric suggests that Barack Obama would be a far superior general election candidate than Hillary Clinton, and it is indeed maddening that so many smart people cannot seem to see this.

Consider this:

1) In every contest that's been held so far, Obama has done much better than Clinton among independent and Republican voters, a strong indication that he has more cross-over appeal.

2) Obama has MUCH better favorable/unfavorable ratings than Clinton.

3) Democratic members of Congress from red states and red districts are overwhelmingly choosing to endorse Obama over Clinton and are arguing that he will do better than Clinton in their states/districts.

4) Obama is a fresh-face who many Americans have not yet formed an opinion of and are willing to give a chance. By contrast, virtually every American has long ago formed an opinion of Hillary Clinton and--whether fair or not--for many that opinion is negative. Many otherwise persuadable folk will simply tune her out. If you doubt this, ask any disgruntled Republican you know whether he/she would ever consider voting for Hillary. Ask the same about Obama. Notice the different reaction.

5) Obama is--by leaps and bounds--a better orator and a more charismatic and likable figure than Clinton. Close you eyes and imagine them each delivering their keynote address at the Democratic Convention. Who do you imagine would be better able to inspire the electorate and win new converts to the progressive cause?

6) Obama has done much better than Clinton at attracting new people into the political process. Which candidate do you think will do a better job increasing Democratic turnout in November?

7) Obama matches up much better against John McCain than Hillary does. McCain is beloved by the media. Clinton is despised. But the media likes Obama and would root for his historical candidacy to succeed. Furthermore, Obama provides a much better contrast with McCain on foreign policy. If Clinton is the nominee, it will be 2004 all over again with Clinton constantly being accused of flip-floppery on the war and being forced to explain her initial vote for it. If Obama is the nominee, he can present a much clearer and more consistent critique of the war and McCain's foreign policy generally. Obama's youth and vitality will also contrast well with McCain's age.

8) Obama matches up much better against Mitt Romney than Hillary does. Romney's biggest liability is his perception as a phony, calculating, say-anything-to-get-elected politician. Clinton--whether fair or not--is perceived similarly. Obama does not have that reputation and would be able to contrast himself well in a race against Romney.

I could go on and on, but hopefully I've made the point. Obviously these are all secondary considerations if you happen to think Clinton would be a better president than Obama. But I really don't understand how anyone can think, based on existing data and knowledge of our political system, that Hillary Clinton is the stronger general election candidate. I think the people who have convinced themselves that the electability question is a close one are badly over-analyzing the situation. It's an Emperor Has No Clothes type of situation. You just need to see the obvious and ignore what people are saying.

If you harbor any doubts about this, please go talk to the people you know who are not diehard Democrats, people who are Republicans or independents. Ask them what they think about Clinton and Obama. If you have any partisan Republican acquaintances, ask them who they are more afraid of facing in the general election. If you still have doubts, read this.

Again, I hate to sound like a broken record on this issue, but I just can't shake my fear that if we nominate Hillary this time around, we'll be throwing away a once in a lifetime opportunity to advance the progressive agenda in this country. I'm convinced that the best case scenario for a Hillary candidacy is a narrow victory that results in very little actual change (and likely galvanizes a Republican resurgence). Obama is the most talented and charismatic Democratic politician to come along in a long time. He has the potential to seize this unique opportunity and really change the political landscape in a fundamental way. It would be a shame to not even give him the chance.