I was listening to Jeff Wagner discuss the latest USA Today-Gallup-CNN Poll, which shows that 53% of those polled would vote for Hillary Clinton. In the remainder of this post, I am going to work off of the assumption that there are no methodology problems with this poll and that it is statistically accurate.
So, with Hillary at 53%, should the right be concerned? Yes. The American public is forever willing to give politicians a second chance. I'm not talking about card carrying members of the Republican and Democratic parties. I'm talking about those individuals who vote in presidential elections, but just don't follow politics particularly closely, people who make up probably a third or more of the electorate every election. They are willing to vote for politicians who have revolted them in the past if that politician has seemed to change their ways. Hillary has been posturing herself to get their vote since the day she join the Senate. If she wins re-election to her seat, she will have 7 years of a moderated Democratic record in the Senate to offset her controversial White House years, and I suspect there are a number of people willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Are Republicans underestimating her electiblility? Yes, and I don't think many realize they are doing it. I think most people on the right are concerned about Clinton running in '08, but it seems most are just so sure that she is unelectable that they are not taking her chances as seriously as they should. I'd like to remind my fellow members of the right that this is exactly what the left did in 2000. They felt Bush was unelectable. They took him seriously, but they were so sure that the American public would not make him president that I don't think they ever brought their 'A' game. My fear right now is that as seriously as everyone is taking a Clinton run in '08, they are still taking it for granted that there will be a huge grass roots movement against her.
What should the right be doing about it? Well, two things. First, Republican politicians should be engaging her constantly. Clinton has already started playing her Presidential chess match. Right now, nobody seems to be playing against her. Hell, Newt Gingrich seems to playing on her side right now. Republicans are allowing Hillary to play the political field right now, and no one is trying to force her to defend her moderate credentials. Second, and for all I know this may be occuring, party leadership needs to be laying out a Clinton strategy for the next 3 years.
Who in the Republican party would best be able to defeat Clinton? Well, Condoleeza Rice is the odds on favorite because she mitigates the advantage Democrats would have among women, and she would also make serious inroads with the black vote. Rice is an unknown quantity, though, as she has never run for an office before. We really wouldn't know what kind of a politician Rice would be until the primaries. Who else, then? Well, if it seems that Clinton is the odds on favorite for the Democratic nomination, then I think Jeb Bush would be the other logical option. Jeb against almost anyone else in the Democratic party would not be a good match up for Republicans because I just don't think that Americans would extend a 'Bush Dynasty'. Hillary is another matter, though. Americans would be forced to choose between two political dynasties, and I think it is a match up Jeb Bush could conceivably win.
We are a long way out from 2008, and I'll be interested to see how this all plays out. I'm concerned at this point, though. Just saying that America wouldn't elect Hillary isn't enough. In fact, it is a losing strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment