According to Thomas B. Edsall, guest OpEd columnist in the New York Times:
1. She is a woman.
2. Democrats tend to pulverize their leading candidates in primaries.
3. She is a woman.
Edsall doesn’t put it in those words exactly, but that’s the gist. And he offers some compelling evidence from the recent midterm elections:
Evaluations of men and women running for House seats in 2006 have turned up disturbing numbers. In the 42 top-tier “Red-to-Blue” races selected by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for intensive financing and support, 25 of the candidates were male and 17 were female. In those contests, male candidates batted .800: 20 victories to five defeats. The women faced higher barriers: three won and 14 lost, batting .176.
This pattern was even more striking in the initial group of “Red-to-Blue” candidates targeted as most promising by the campaign committee. Of the 11 men, nine, or 82 percent, won. Of the 11 women, 10, or 90.1 percent, lost.
Why do women seem to be floundering? Democratic officials, according to Edsall, have a “working hypothesis,” which is that “female candidates were more vulnerable on the issue of immigration, viewed as more generous with federal aid and amnesty.” Also, it’s suggested that women aren’t tough enough to handle terrorism. Women, in other words, are seen as being too nice.
Which all suggests that Hillary Clinton’s public persona — a lot of strength and only a little warmth — is calculated to negate an electoral bias against niceness. And it seems to be working. “Her campaign,” Edsall writes, “released a memo with recent data showing that 68 percent of voters describe Hillary as ‘a strong leader,’ and that 92 percent say they would vote for a woman for president — up from 52 percent in a similar poll in 1955.”
But do these kind of poll results hold up? Do people confess to pollsters how they truly feel about voting for a woman, or other minority candidates? In Freakonomics we offered evidence suggesting that black candidates do better in pre-election polling than in actual voting; and that a white racist like David Duke does better in the actual election than in polls. (Duke, BTW, was a featured performer in the Iranian Holocaust-denying conference, which I blogged about earlier.)
So here’s an open question: Is Hillary Clinton electable? And if not, is it because she’s a woman? And if that’s not the reason, what is?
From 1 to 25 of 32 Comments
I recently read _Condi vs. Hillary : The Next Great Presidential Race_ by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. It was interesting and informative, though it was clear that Dick Morris doesn’t like Hillary.
I’m a fairly liberal fellow, and really liked Bill Clinton. I’m so-so about Hillary, but it’s basically a sure thing that I’d vote for the Democratic candidate regardless.
However, I came away from that book with even more respect for Condi, so I’m disappointed that it looks like she won’t run. It sounds twisted, but I respect smart people that disagree with me.
I was also very taken with Powell, and was also disappointed that he decided not to run years back. I truly felt that the entire country could have gotten behind him and we’d have a President liked by nearly everyone.
But that’s beside the point. While she is clearly the front-runner at this point for the Democratic nomination, there seems to be such a divider of opinion about her, that I don’t think that she can win. There seems to be too much negative opinion about her out there, even among the Democrats.
I do NOT think that she’s unelectable because she’s a woman. However, I’m willing to admit that many people have a problem with her because she’s a strong woman and they just don’t like that in their world. And it’s that anti-Hillary opinion that I think makes her unelectable.
I was actually hoping that 6 years ago that Bush would end up picking LIZ Dole as his running mate. She’s not all that different from Hillary Clinton, but yet, she has a very different public opinion. (And her husband seems like a nice guy, too.) That action by Bush would have then forced Gore to also pick a female running mate, which was up in the air, but Pat Shroeder [sic?] would have been a good fit. And regardless of the outcome, the country would be better for it in many ways.
That said, I think that McCain will probably get the Republican nomination. And while I wouldn’t vote for him, I won’t mind if he wins. (I very much minded that Bush won.) McCain seems to be a “good guy”.
Of course, the wild card at this time is Obama. If Hillary and Obama were to hitch up together early, I think that they’d be a cinch for the nomination and probably for the election as well. However, I still think that they’d be fairly polarizing, and wouldn’t be able to “unite” the country the same way that someone like McCain could.
— TaedThe reason why Hillary Clinton won’t win is because she’s a snappy little vindictive bitch.
Of course there is no evidence to support that, nor do I think that comment is true, but I really think that is how she is viewed by many Americans. It’s perception that is reality, is it not? Almost like the “thumping” that republicans got in the most recent election. Survey polls showed that people believed that our economy had gone to hell in a handbasket, but when those same people polled were asked how they were doing personally, a large number of them said that they felt much better off. The perception was that “other” people out there have it really bad right now, which may or may not be reality, but it’s how the people voted.
— mr winstonIf (when) Hillary does get the nomination, she will be the obvious frontrunner for 2008. I think it will be interesting to see what happens with Obama. I don’t see him playing much second fiddle to Hillary as a VP possibility. As a moderate, I cannot stand Hillary but find Obama a very viable possibility. If Obama challenges Hillary, I think he comes out on top.
It’s not because she is a woman that she won’t win. It’s because she is not the type of woman most women would like to see in the White House (again).
— wesleyb41After watching two leadership battles here in Canada (federal Liberals and the Alberta Conservatives) I wonder if she’ll suffer from being the long time front runner.
In both the races here there were candidates who began to work long before, built a solid base and went into the voting as front runners. Both those candidates ran into solid blocks of ‘anybody but them’ voters. Both candidates lost.
Hillary appears to have a strong base. She is a Senator, so we know that at that level she is electable. But to make it through the primaries she will have to pick up votes from the candidates who fall out of the race. If those votes gather to ‘anybody but Hillary’ then she won’t make it through the primaries despite all her work.
The wildcard is Obama. If he chooses to run with Hillary then she could overcome the ABH factor. If he runs against her he may benefit from it.
(The losing candidates in Canada, both of whom were considered highly likely to win, were Jim Dinning, in Alberta, and Michael Ignatieff, federal Liberals.)
— Paul TurnbullIf Hillary doesn’t win, it’ll be due to the high negatives associated with her as an already-known quantity. See this pollster.com post.
Obama’s popularity is reaching rock start status early. He just had 1500 people show up for a NH appearance this weekend. Other non-Hillary water-testers can’t sell out broom closets.Obama-mania is going to get national buzz over the next few weeks. IMO, Obama has the right brand for the times. The most common criticism in response is going to be that he’s inexperienced and untested, but in the current environment, I think people are unlikely to be dissuaded by that. Instead, they are going to largely trust their own measure of the guy and find him to seem sincere and on the right track despite the fact that there isn’t currently much if any substance behind the “hope salesman” angle. People need and want hope right now, and it can only credibly be sold right now by someone young, charismatic, and untested. Old guys and insiders can’t sell that sort of stuff.
— bkHillary will enable Bill to have 8 more years.
— egretmanObama and Hilary would break my heart. I can’t stand her. Obama and Mark Warner, though, would rock!
— annaravenI don’t think Hillary will be elected, though not because she’s polarizing. Bill and George were also polarizing.
To be elected president in this day and age requires a high degree of personal charisma and telegenics (TV q factor). I don’t see Hillary, deliberate tactic or no, having that level of charisma.
Secondly, I do feel there is still an irrational bias against women, where they have to have a significantly higher level of achievement to be considered competent at the same level as men. At the presidential election level I can only imagine what perfect tightrope miracles would be expected to make a woman electable.
— jafiPersonally, I would not vote for Hillary because of her lack of sincerity.
There are a number of traits a good leader should have and I place a lot of importance on sincerity and humility. She seems to lack both and tends to move in the direction that would gain her the most popularity.
In general, I don’t think she could win because she is so divisive. Of course I thought the same about Bush before his second term started.
— kentavosI think Hillary is the only female candidate out there that’s really gotten above the whole “She’s a woman” thing.
She’s not electable, but that’s towards the bottom of the reasons why. The biggest issue is that Rush Limbaugh and company have spent the last ten years utterly demonizing her as a far left liberal, to the point that the Republicans could nominate Stalin for their side and they’d still come out in droves to vote against her.
Meanwhile, the *actual* left wing of the democratic party isn’t too enamored with her thanks to the fact that in reality she’s pretty centrist-right, and just plain right wing on “family values” nonsense.
Her support for the Iraq war will do her in with the moderates.
My prediction: Hillary only does well in polls right now thanks to name recognition, her support will drop off once real alternatives are fielded. Barak Obama will wind up taking the Democratic nomination on sheer charisma and style.
— ejp1082In addition to what “ejp1082″ said, there is a strong hatred of Hillary Clinton in the South, largely due to the efforts of Rush Limbaugh. Any time I hear someone start a rant on Hillary, I ask them to name just one of Hillary’s policy decisions or comments with which they had a disagreement. I’ve posed this question to many people and not response had to do with a comment or a policy decision. The South is firmly against Hillary but clueless as to why. That said, I’ve never met anyone who had a favorable opinion of Hillary outside of the Southern United States. The South is a very strong voting force and the primary reason why she will not be President.
— pshawThe poor performance of female candidates could be explained by selection bias on the part of the political parties (favoring women) rather than (or at least in addition to) bias on the part of the voters (against women). If the party leaders think that there are reasons to choose female candidates because they are female (becuase there are more women voters, because women voters care more about gender, becuase the party will be perceived as not being biased), then they will have a lower merit-based standard for women than they have for men. This is analogous to high loan default rates and college drop out rates for members of protected classes (which also says more about the selection process than it does about the average abilities/behaviors of the protected classes). So the silver lining could be that voters are not as biased as the party leaders.
— bjarturHillary won’t win for the same reasons John Kerry didn’t win: she has no charisma and she’s not likable (those two things usually go hand-in-hand, but not always. Bob Dole was likable but had no charisma.) Just as people buy things from people they like, and associate with people they like, they also vote for people they like.
— debbers43It may sound stupid, but I don’t think I’ll vote for Clinton strictly because of her ties with Bill, and not because I didn’t like Bill, just because I think there needs to be new blood in the white house.
The idea of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton being our last four presidents seems unreasonable to me. There have to be other families with ideas for the country, that are also electable.
Also, I like Obama, and think McCain would make a very interesting candidate.
Should be interesting.
— djfeld01-dj
Let me come at this from a bit of a different direction. Only one person has gone directly from the US congress (House or Sentate) to the presidency since World War II. (Kennedy faced a very difficult race in 1960 with Nixon, but went from the Senate to the White House.)
Perhaps the publicity it takes to legislate (an ugly job!) is not productive in winning a national election. What’s worse is this publicity and voting is all in public record.
Then again, early in primary season, US legislators have the most publicity. When it comes to nomination time though, it’s usually a vice president or governor winning the nod.
— n8w0mnA very smart woman (my wife) once told me that many women will not vote for her simply because they do not respect the manner in which she handled her husband’s infidelity.
— guyentinHillary won’t be elected because the American voting public is obscenely ignorant about politics.
As a poster above stated, the public’s already made its mind up on Hillary, regardless of her actual policies. Hillary Clinton is “liberal,” though she’s not liberal at all. McCain is “moderate,” despite being a hardline conservative. The American education system has as a process eliminated instruction in critical thinking, so Americans aren’t equipped with the skills to evaluate individuals themselves. They rely on the media, and if the media says Clinton = liberal, they accept it that way.
I’ve found that this has been cultivated to the point that even presenting someone with an H. Clinton voting record is not enough to convince them that she is not a liberal.
Oh, and while they’d never admit it in a poll, a large group of Southern gentlemen believe a woman’s place is in the kitchen, not the Oval Office. I didn’t really believe this, but then I moved here.
What’s more disappointing is the number of women who agree with them.
— tim in tampaIntensive efforts by the Right have managed to convince a lot of people that Clinton is a bad person. It generally has nothing to do with her actions, and everything to do with the reputation created for her by the media.
I doubt she is electable, although I would certainly vote for her. Not only because she is a strong, smart, and ambitious woman, but also because she is likely to be a centrist president.
— Judith_SI believe that voters have had enough of the Bush and Clinton families. If she is elected and serves two terms, either a Bush or a Clinton will have been President for 28 straight years.
— JRootI think it’s interesting that nearly every single-name mention on this thread (myself included) has been a last name for a man, but first name for a woman.
Namely “Hillary” and “Condi” versus “Bush”, “Clinton” (referring to Bill), “Obama”, and “McCain”.
The only exception I saw was referring to “Clinton” meaning Hillary by “Judith_S”, who I’m guessing is a woman.
Maybe we (including me) are not all as enlightened as we’d like to think? (And I was the only male in my woman’s studies class, so I like to think of myself as a feminist.)
— TaedExcellent point from poster above, thanks for that.
I notice a lot of people saying that she will not be elected, but not because she is a woman, and saying that she will not be elected because she is cold, uncharismatic and not likeable. I think we’ve established that most people don’t know her policies (I certainly don’t, being in California), but that is the public perception nonetheless. So my question is, is she percieved this way legitimately? Or has this public perception been cultivated by misogynist proganda that a woman who is ambitious, smart and successful must also be “cold” and “not likeable”? It’s kind of a chicken or egg thing. So if she isn’t nominated or doesn’t win because of this perception, wouldn’t it follow that she didn’t win because she is a woman?
— NoelleI agree that one factor working against her is the fact that the front runner in the Democratic race (well, Republicans too) beat each other up and do real damage in the primary season.
Hillary Clinton simply isn’t respected by most voters because of a variety of factors that work against her– he handling of Bill’s infidelity, her “personality” issue (Call it whatever bad term you want), and the “Limbaugh” factor. All these are damaging and do work against her. Also, she’s not the “rock star” of the Democratic party right now.
Honestly, in my mind, I can’t name one piece of positive lesiglation or policy that she has championed that has been in a high profile position, either from her public position, or her position as a Senator. What has she done, outside of chairing a committee on universal health care that was a huge failure? What are her accomplishments? She’s high-visibility, but low-accomplishments in my book.
— JustMeAs others have noted on the charisma issue, Hillary doesn’t have it. Barack has it. Hillary is like a high school math teacher for that algebra class that you dread attending. She needs to be happy more and smile and show emotion.
— jur777Hillary may or may not be unelectable (question: would those same Southern chauvinists vote for a half-black, half-White guy with the middle name of Hussein?), but I think she’d make a good President. Personal issues aside, I’d say her brand of centrist DLC politics makes more sense than the radical leftism bandied around by the “progressives” or the neocon antics of Bush that got America into so much trouble over the past half decade.
I’m rooting for a Clinton-Obama ticket. After (Hillary) Clinton retires, Obama’d be a shoo-in for President.
— johnleemkCondi Rice would probably be elected in a heartbeat. And last I seen, shes a WOMAN
She has shown leadership.
What has Hillary shown???
— socialismisevilThat she can lead a bunch of angry losers.
That her socialsit vision cannot hold up against the freemarket.
That she can flip flop with the best of them.