She will finish fourth in the Iowa caucuses.
I used to think the top three would be Edwards, Obama and Vilsack in some order. I now think there is an opening for Richardson to finish in the top three if he makes a serious play for Iowa.
I have been saying this at MyDD and elsewhere and getting laughed at by some who follow the polls, but no one (myself included) thought Gephardt would finish fourth either. Follow me after the jump for the short version of my reasoning.
I know some big donor types who are for Clinton, but I don’t know any volunteer/activist types who are for her. In fact, she is the last choice of most of the volunteer/activist types I know.
I imagine that a lot of her support in polls comes from casual participants in politics. Would they vote for her in a primary? Probably. Would they come out for an hour or more on a cold night in January to caucus for her? I doubt it.
I don’t see Clinton as a likely second choice for those supporting non-viable candidates at the caucus.
When precinct captains like me start working their precincts and talking to neighbors about the campaign, they will be giving good reasons to support other candidates (in my case Edwards) and not to support Clinton. For instance, she does not connect well with people in rural areas, the south or the west. She will drag down our ticket. She is already hurting our candidate recruitment.
She has very high negatives and could only win in a brutal 50.5/49.5 percent election, whereas any of the other leading Democrats have the potential to win the presidency in a landslide.
My own brother swears he would write in a candidate rather than vote for Clinton if she is our nominee. He never votes Republican ever, and he would gladly vote for any of the other Democrats running against any Republican.
I am sure he’s not the only Democrat who feels that way. Why would we nominate the one person who would demoralize part of our base while uniting the Republican base? Even if people like my brother are only two or three or five percent of the population, can we afford to lose them in swing states?
My theory is that when neighbors start making these arguments to politically involved people who attend caucuses, Clinton’s support will sink.
I also believe that she will be non-viable in quite a few small-town and rural precincts.
In the comments, tell me what is wrong with my theory. I am especially interested to know if any of you personally know volunteer/activist types who are excited to get out there and knock on doors or work their precincts for Hillary Clinton. I am not talking about people who would be willing to take a paid position with the Clinton campaign.
All the money in the world can’t compensate for the army of volunteers who will be out there making the case for Edwards and Obama.
5 Comments
oops--hit post too soon
I forgot to list some strong substantive arguments the Obama and Edwards volunteers will be making against Clinton when they talk to their friends and neighbors:
she was wrong on Iraq and was one of the last Democrats to start calling for bringing the troops home
instead of using her high-profile Senate seat to lead, she has been out there co-sponsoring bills on flag-burning and video games
she is supported by a lot of corporate interests and would not stand up to them in a battle over, say, health care reform
And I don’t think she will do well in the debates, at least not compared to Edwards, Obama and Richardson.
This is not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea. There may be many Democrats who have a vaguely favorable impression of Hillary Clinton, but when they learn more about the alternatives and see the passion of friends and neighbors for those alternatives, Clinton will not be their first choice on caucus night.
Like I said, tell me why I am wrong about this.
desmoinesdem Wed 28 Feb 11:07 PM
I disagree
I know a few open Clinton supporters, and a few more people who are definitely going to end up as Clinton supporters. For some women (at least the young women I hang out with) she has been a source of inspiration. She is going to pick up a lot of support from that demographic, and if she has a lot of young women in her office there will certainly be some young men who join up too. 🙂
drew-miller Thu 1 Mar 10:39 AM
that amazes me
I’m in my late 30s, and the only women I know who are supporting Hillary are much older (50s and 60s and 70s). As I said, they are not activist types. I don’t know a lot of women in their 20s, though.
I am amazed that hip young women would not see through her bullshit–she’s got this incredible access to the media, yet she’s out there co-sponsoring bills on flag burning and video games? What a joke.
Having lived through the 1990s as an adult, I was repeatedly disappointed by the Clintons throwing progressive policies under the bus. If the Clintons had done just a little more (say, for the environment) there never would have been 3 million Nader voters in 2000.
I really don’t see what is inspiring about her at all.
desmoinesdem Thu 1 Mar 11:20 PM
Eh
I’m not a Bill Clinton hater either. He could have done more (especially if he could have kept his dick in his pants), but he did set aside the most land of any President since Roosevelt, along with putting our country on a responsible and effective economic track. And for young people, Bill Clinton is really our only experience with non-Republicans. Hell, he’s the only Democratic President to serve during my lifetime.
drew-miller Fri 2 Mar 3:22 PM
The H-Factor
It’s hard to claculate how Hillary will finish in Iowa. I, too, have yet to meet an activist and/or political junky who supports Hillary, let alone anyone who is passionate about her campaign in Iowa. But I’m also cautious about this, given the same thing held true for Chet Culver during the gubernatorial race, and look where Chet finished in the Democratic Primary. My guess is that Democratic Centrist voters stay in the closet until election day.
For now, I still think the smart money is on Obama and Edwards finishing one/two in Iowa, but keep an eye on the closet door.
tmlindsey Thu 1 Mar 11:38 AM