Friday, November 30, 2007

Zogby: Hillary Would Lose

Update Feb. 4, 2008: Please read this post, but there's also more up-to-date polling info -- showing a tighter race now but with Obama still definitely more electable vs. McCain than Clinton is -- in the top few posts at the top o' the blog here.

********

Here's a question: what do you most want in a Democratic Presidential candidate?

a) A progressive.
b) For the first time in our history, a black man or a woman.
c) Someone who can actually beat the Republican.
d) All of the above.

Personally, I'll go with "d." Which, according to a Zogby poll, means -- NOT HILLARY:

"General election match-ups show the New York Senator would lose against every top Republican

UTICA, New York – A new Zogby Interactive survey shows Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York would lose to every one of the top five Republican presidential contenders, representing a reversal of fortune for the national Democratic front–runner who had led against all prospective GOP opponents earlier this year. Meanwhile, fellow Democrats Barack Obama of Illinois and John Edwards of North Carolina would defeat or tie every one of the Republicans, this latest survey shows."

Yeah, but that survey's unreliable, right? Right. (What, you thought Hillary was above hypocrisy?)

If either Obama or Edwards is more electable than Hillary in the general election, how would an Obama-Edwards ticket do? I'll tell you: it would be choice (d), above: progressive, diverse, and electable.

Even if you prefer Hillary to either of those two, you have to remember that we don't live in a perfect world. We don't want to mirror the Republicans' mistake, when they ran Bob Dole because it was "his turn." We don't want to nominate a Michael Dukakis, someone we like but who is unelectable. We want to WIN, dammit. And besides, ideological purity and Rovian pragmatism actually coincide for a change: Obama-Edwards would be both more progressive and more electable than Clinton: Q.E.D.

Even from a purely feminist perspective, this poll -- and the direction of this poll, showing Hillary on a downward trend against all her Republican doppelgangers -- should nudge people out of Hillary's camp. Here's why: Justice Stevens (a Ford appointee who considers himself a "moderate conservative" but nevertheless is pro-choice) is 87 years old; Justice Ginsburg (one of only two Democrats on the Court) is 74 and a cancer survivor. SEVEN of the current justices were appointed by Democrats; the other seven are Republican. So what's better for women: running Hillary and having a Republican nominate the next one or two justices and putting a stake in the heart of Roe v Wade, or electing Obama and allowing young progressive judges to take their places, preserving Roe, and maybe even gaining a third seat on the Court if one of the Republican justices dies or needs to retire in the near future?

But if we want to win the Presidency in '08, we can't wait until after Iowa and New Hampshire, let alone all the big media-market states that have moved their primaries forward in order to favor the front-runners, to stop Clinton. The other Dems have to stop pretending they're electable and put their support behind a unified anti-Clinton progressive coalition NOW, or it'll be a waste of time.

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

An AP and Yahoo! poll showed that Hillary was the candidate Americans would most not want on their bowling team.

Fun fact.

-Brad
www.clashofculture.com

Thersites D. Scott said...

I like that!

(Why do I think Bill probably is an OK bowler, and Hillary's never laced up a pair of slick-soled shoes in her life?)

editor said...

I'd put good money on Bill in a match, or a game, or whatever they call it when you bowl against someone else.

Anonymous said...

Gore-Dean '08

Anonymous said...

Bowling - 10 frames is a game, best of 3(or whatever) is a match.

lucretia said...

I'm not for Hillary unless she becomes the candidate. Obama appears no better however. I think he's fooling the left. He is a consummate politician.

I'm hopeful John Edwards will split a vote and make big gain. And Iowa is not necessarily the end of his campaign. He's just as smart, if not smarter, than the other two, but unlike the other two he cares about working America. The big game in town is all about oil and other peoples' territory, which means more wars and more and more dead. The corps back the Repubublicans, and also back Hillary and Barack. Hillary and the Republican Right sold their soul long ago. Sly Obama is playing his cards close to his vest.

It's a tragic situation. Howard Dean saw it all. He ran, and they crushed hin.

lucretia