Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Re: Seattle Times Prop 1 Edito... | The Star Wars Trumpet Solo »

Monday, October 15, 2007

Hillary Clinton Statewide

posted by on October 15 at 17:53 PM

Howard Dean famously said the Democrats needed to appeal to “the guy with the Confederate flag and his pickup truck.” It was one thing for a New England liberal to say that—to want desperately to do that— and quite another to actually get those votes.

It’s the Howard Deans of the world that want to get the important lumpenprole vote, but can’t. Apparently, it’s the Hillary Clinton’s that can.

I just got around to checking out Freaky Friday Slog. I haven’t seen the poll Comte quoted, but the results (evidently Clinton is beating Barack Obama in Washington state as opposed to just Seattle) make sense. Earlier this year, when I looked at the results of Clinton’s 2006 victory in New York, I found that Clinton scored well with the white working class.

This isn’t particularly surprising given that Clinton is more conservative than progressive Democrats, but it does contradict the more widespread notion about her—that she’s a big turn off with the all-important mainstream and independent voter.

In fact, according to a recent poll by the Washington Post, she’s beating Rudy Giuliani among independent voters 48-44.

RSS icon Comments


Well, of course she is.

She'll make an excellent cabinet member for President Gore and VP Obama.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 15, 2007 6:10 PM

Oh fuck it! I am bailing on Obama & may as well support Hillary (at least she may win the Primary) I am SICK of voting for losers and BTW, it is too late for Gore to get in. Filing deadlines in the early primary states are about to expire.

Shit.... so I suppose I will support Hillary Clinton. My hope of Gore getting in or Obama distiguishing himself have all faded........

More southern fried Eisenhower coming up!

Posted by Just Me | October 15, 2007 6:18 PM

I'm supporting Edwards in the primary: His policies connect much more with the working class voters Hillary appears to be getting, however, I'm ultimately anybody but a republican.

Posted by neo-realist | October 15, 2007 7:10 PM

I'm tired of Hillary already. Yes, VP. She needs to work out a deal with Gore and give him the presidency he deserves and that we need. Write Hillary on her website and let her know. I am doing it!

Posted by Lloyd Cooney | October 15, 2007 7:20 PM

This is the dilemma that progressives face: go for a candidate we like or a centrist who actually has a chance of winning? I was a Deaniac early on but went for Kerry in the '04 caucus because I thought he had a better chance of beating Idiot Boy in the general election. I stand by that decision even though Kerry lost. If a decorated Vietnam vet couldn't win Ohio or Florida (never mind Mississippi and Oklahoma) I doubt if Dean could have. Rewind further back to 2000 when Ralph Nader split the progressive vote, and look what happened.

The only thing we can learn from the Republicans is how to unite behind a candidate. Anyone who thinks the wacko fundamentalists won't vote for Romney because he is a Mormon or Giuliani because he is pro-choice (for now) is probably guilty of wishful thinking. This crowd absolutely detests Hillary and would sooner vote for Osama bin Laden if he was running against her. They aren't going to sit this one out or, despite recent news reports, run a third candidate. Hillary is going to need every vote she can get. If she heads the Democratic ticket will we progressives learn from the past and support her even if she isn't perfect or our first choice? I certainly hope so.

Posted by david | October 15, 2007 7:22 PM

In the highly-unlikely possibility that Ron Paul gets the GOP nod, the Republicans would be the peace party. Wouldn't that be a kick in the head?

Clinton's victory or any other Republican's victory will mean US troops in Iraq for at least another 4 years. Combined with continued bellicosity toward Iran. Oh joy.

Posted by Fritz | October 15, 2007 7:51 PM

I must agree wholeheartedly with David's second paragraph. She'll need all the support she can get. She'll get mine, but grudgingly.

Posted by Dianna | October 15, 2007 8:38 PM

But the sad thing is the Democrats will never get the Confederate-flag-donning pick-up trucker. Not until Bobby Ray loses his job at the tire store, has to sell his pick-up and stand in an unemployment check line. It's the wrong target group.

The Democrats need to go after those who no longer vote, voters who think it just doesn't matter. Which, I will agree, is a much harder task than donning a cowboy hat and saying, "I'm one of y'all!"

Posted by Bauhaus | October 15, 2007 9:19 PM

Please give up this notion that Hillary Clinton is conservative. Why? Because she didn't issue a press release apologizing for her Iraq War vote? (which I respect a lot) rates her as more liberal than Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dean, or Gore -- based solely on their positions. If you're going to parrot the cable news line that Hillary is conservative, please cite reasons why.

On The Issues

Posted by jamier | October 15, 2007 9:27 PM

i've said this before: i think she may well just pull off a reverse-bush. meaning: he presented himself before the election as more centrist than he wound up being in the whilte house (remeber "compassionate conservatism" ha!). hillary may very well play the conservative card in the election, then ultimately be a more liberal president than she's letting on now. could happen.

Posted by ellarosa | October 15, 2007 9:46 PM

@9, The National Journal rankings are more complete, and for the 2006 rankings (the last complete ranking) Clinton (32nd most liberal) is more conservative than Biden (24th), Dodd (17th), and Obama (10th).

For comparison, Ted Kennedy is 3rd, Patty Murray is 8th, and John Kerry is 12th.

All of the Democratic candidate rankings (except Edwards for some reason) are listed in one place for every year back to 1981 at (PDF).

Posted by Cascadian | October 15, 2007 11:44 PM

Too late?

We haven't had a SINGLE DELEGATE ELECTED at any level.

Not until 2008.

Sigh. Do I have to explain how the caucus and primary systems work, that the delegates elect delegates further up, and that until the actual convention it can change?

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 16, 2007 1:32 AM

First of all Will in Seattle, The media picks our candidates in case you have not noticed and for those who are defending Clinton (or Obama) they both have said we are staying in Iraq until at least 2013. (check out the last debate)

Hillary is not only not appologizing for her vote for the Iraq vote and let Bush fool her but she has no intention of leaving.

Posted by Just Me | October 16, 2007 4:58 AM

I know the media picks our candidates.

I've been harassing reporters at the WaPo and NYT about that for quite some time now.

But they don't get to vote for them. You do. In this state, by showing up at the caucus.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 16, 2007 10:59 AM

since when can an openly progressive candidate win a general election in the national arena? the sad truth is that progressives don't vote nearly as often as conservatives, moderates and independents.

hillary is no more conservative than anyone else. in fact, she has repeatedly identified herself as progressive. but she knows where she needs to stand, to whom she needs to focus her speeches on the issues to represent the whole of the country.

it's exactly that level of calculation and competency that helped her win over conservative and liberal upstate new york counties, and will help her win the presidency next year.

Posted by Kim | October 16, 2007 11:08 AM

Ok, so I'm not crazy to be supporting Hillary but most stranger readers/seattleites are crazy to be supporting Obama.

Exactly, we need to have a united front if we intend to win, Hillary has a fighting chance.

"'s exactly that level of calculation and competency that helped her win over conservative and liberal upstate new york counties, and will help her win the presidency next year"

Couldn't have said it better Kim!

But I hope she can overcome the baggage of her husband's administration, and I hope she can clearly define that this war is "Bush's war".

Posted by SoIjustneedtoleaveseattlebutnotWA | October 16, 2007 4:08 PM

There's a bumper sticker I've seen here in Seattle many times that says "if you're not outraged you're not paying attention." The problem right now is the status quo of perpetual war, a growing global police state, and the eventual draft of my three beautiful and peace loving children into whatever additional wars these power hungry politicians will be fighting to lower oil prices by the time my children reach age 18. Unlike Hillary, Ron Paul voted AGAINST the war in Iraq (he knew it was bad intelligence and unconstitutional), against the PATRIOT act (blatantly unconstitutional), and has shown the moral courage required in his voting record of the past 10 years in Congress to actually stand for what's right even when it's not popular to bring the troops home. The biggest way to vote against the war is to vote Ron Paul in the primaries and then switch back to whoever you want in the final. The fact he has more campaign contributions from the military than any other candidate really says something. Supporting the troops means supporting their mission to defend the constitution from all threats, foreign and DOMESTIC and Ron Paul is our best hope for that at this point.

Posted by mossback | October 21, 2007 4:32 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).