Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The Idea That Hillary Is Elitist Is an Elitist Idea


Yeah, but, like Savage, she was in favor of the war. Not fucking cool.

Posted by dzienkowski | January 12, 2007 2:49 PM

Do these same "working class whites" in the South vote the same way? I ahve always assumed that lower middle-class northerners were always smart enough to vote Dem, but poor southern whites voted Repub since they took over for the Dixiecrats. Just wondering of this NY analasys holds up in other places.

Posted by longball | January 12, 2007 2:58 PM

I canít support Hillary Clinton because she turns off voters. Why does she seem to be the last person to give an opinion on any current issue? She's just not likeable. She's like your friend's mean mom.

Posted by Hillary | January 12, 2007 2:58 PM

"Liberal elites"?

Josh, sweetie. you and Dan keep forgetting the "Republican" in Seattle's Only Republican Newspaper.

Posted by Juliet Balcony | January 12, 2007 3:10 PM

Interesting stats, but the evidence you cite proves only weak support for your conclusion. You assume that NY is sufficiently similar to the country at large for your cited stats to mean anything--but you provide no reason to think it IS sufficiently similar. Also, what's the point of cherrypicking the counties that best support your thesis? Dubious rhetoric, that. Either provide us a link to the complete data or refrain from selective data reporting.

And isn't it relevant to mention HC's re-election bid was as an incumbent and that she destroyed her weak Repub challenger John Spencer 67/31 ??? Given that the stats don't tell us much about what voters nationwide in 2008.

You're generalizing from one specific case to another specific case with no attempt to account for the differences. Those who say that HC turns off voters also have to make their case, of course, but you definitely haven't come close to showing they're wrong. On the plus side, thanks for a nice fallacious argument by analogy to use in my logic class.

Posted by ben | January 12, 2007 3:22 PM


Median income in the country at large is $43K.
In New York it's $44K.

College Grads: 24 % in NY. 24% in US.

Posted by Josh Feit | January 12, 2007 3:37 PM

Hillary Clinton running as an incumbent is completely different than running otherwise -- "she's a communist lesbian witch," these hypothetical masses might say, "but she's OUR communist lesbian witch." People often say that about incumbents who they don't like.

Posted by J. Lasser | January 12, 2007 3:38 PM

This is pretty conclusive, as long as the Republicans nominate John Spencer, or some high school grad like him, and as long as only New York State gets to vote. Otherwise, not so much.

Posted by Fnarf | January 12, 2007 3:39 PM

Your premise is bullshit. Urban liberals don't like her because she's pro-war, pro-corporation and pro-flag-burning-amendment. In other words: she ain't liberal, Jack.

Posted by DOUG. | January 12, 2007 4:24 PM

My prob with Hillary is that she's a political weather vane that blows whichever way the polls tell her (i.e. her idiotic support for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning).

Ask her where she stands on the issues, and she'll get back to you after the early polling data comes in.

Posted by Original Andrew | January 12, 2007 4:27 PM

She is seriously going to clean up if she runs.

Posted by Alex | January 12, 2007 4:47 PM

People have started to like her.

She's moderate, slightly more left than Bill.

And we LOVE Bill.

She's electable, maybe not in 2008, maybe not as President, but she'll get back into the White House somehow. She's done everything else she's put her mind to.

Posted by Soupytwist | January 12, 2007 4:53 PM

Let's not forget that she's a former board member of Wal-Mart. She, like many other powerful Senators (hello Cantwell and Murray!!!) are completely bought by the corporations. The only time they change their minds is when the polls threaten their reelection.

Posted by erin | January 12, 2007 5:54 PM

A lot of Hillary's supporter want her to run. Her only other problem is that she has no desire to run. She is very happy being a US Senator.


Posted by Jensen Interceptor | January 12, 2007 5:59 PM

Most of the Hillary bashing, including the notion that she is too unlikable to win, turns out to be a fantasy, almost entirely spread by the frothing ditto-heads on Faux News. I used to be worried about it, but then I learned the truth.

I can't site the data or provide links (well, maybe I could, but I'm too lazy to go search for it). There were two national polls taken a few weeks or a month ago. One polled simple popularity among all declared and likely candidates. HC came out on top, leading all other Dems (including Obabma) and all the Repubs (including McCain, Giuliani, and Romney). The other polled her against specific candidates. Again, it showed her beating any of the republicans one-on-one (McCain lead the polls among Repubs, but trailed HC). If I remember right, the first poll was pretty broad. The second poll was much deeper, breaking it down by gender, age, race, and so on. The second poll, in particular, was pretty hard to discount.

Yes, the election is a long way off, and anything could happen. But the polls clearly show that Hillary Clinton is electable. That doesn't mean you have to like her, or that someone else might not be better for the job, or that you should support her, or that she is a shoe-in (she lead the polls, but not by much). Personally, I'm kinda leaning toward Obama myself.

But it does show us that the "Hillary isn't electable" mantra is bullshit. Sure, there're a few people who vehemently dislike her. But they all work for Faux News.

Posted by SDA in SEA | January 12, 2007 6:34 PM

Doug and Original,

While I can't say I support the flag burning amendment, for the most part Hillary has been a leader and good with our side. She was one of the first Democrats to oppose the escallation. She and Patty Murray got the morning after pill through the FDA. She of course spent a lot of political capital on universal healthcare. Her working the minimum wage issue, tying it to Congressional pay, was what got it traction in a Republican controlled Congress. Those are some of the reasons that she's ranked the 10th most liberal out of current senators by Progressive Punch (there are some problems with it, but it's the most broad-based metric).

Posted by Stephen Phillips | January 12, 2007 9:17 PM

Oops, not current Senators, as of last session. I'm not sure how many votes the new crew is going to have to cast before PP gets updated.

Posted by Stephen Phillips | January 12, 2007 9:51 PM

The only problem with the polling here... it's from new york. it is naive to assume that new york, the state she represents in the senate (very well I might add), at all reflects popular sentiment about her around the country. yes, she is a great candidate, but outside of NY no one trusts her. she is a hard sell to the wall mart voters in the us because she frightens them as a symbol of something the midwest is glaringly lacking in: ambition.

Posted by aaron | January 13, 2007 8:55 AM

Hey Gang,

I get the obvious limitations of these numbers as a laser accurate predicter of HC's chances nationally , but be honest: They look different than you imagined they would. And that can't be a bad sign for HC.

Basically, the rap on HC is that she freaks out the "real" voters. Well, in the only poll that matters (as they say), election results, HC's numbers give pause to that conventional wisdom. I didn't look at her 2000 numbers, but her 2006 showing challenges the widespread perception among the pundits that she's an elitist's candidate.

How will she play in the South? I don't know. But I imagine she'll do better in the South than Obama. (Hello, Harold Ford.)

Meanwhile, I'm skeptical of the idea that New York's white working class voters are that much different than those throughout the rest of the country. Have you ever met someone from in and around Buffalo?

Posted by Josh Feit | January 13, 2007 9:22 AM

She kicked ass in New York because she's a damn good Senator and ran a damn good campaign. People don't like her from a distance because the media has built up a nasty reputation for her. When they meet her, they find her so knowledgeable and caring, that they end up respecting and liking her. She visited every county in New York, and since she'd done her homework, she knew the issues facing rural voters and explained how she could help them.

Yeah, I'd prefer that Gore ran, especially after listening to his speeches on Alternative Radio, but I'd feel pretty excited about a Hillary presidency.

Posted by Gitai | January 13, 2007 10:03 AM

I very much appreciate the contrarianism, but I think your premise is flawed, as Ben pointed out earlier. Yes, New York has the same income and education levels as the country as a whole, but not all working-class are created equal. New York has, for example, a higher % of minorities, who are much more predisposed to vote Democtrat (for example, NY state is 18% black, compared to 12% for the country).

New York state also has more registered Democrats, as a percentage, than the country as a whole. In other words, HIllary has a lot of built in advantages in New York state that she won't have in a general election.

Finally, she'll have a much more viable opponent. Isn't it possible that those working-class residents of Franklin and Montgomery County would be more willing to vote Republican if the candidate was NOT a blathering idiot, but rather, say, John McCain?

Posted by Frank Bruno | January 13, 2007 10:33 AM

HILLARY 08!!! She is going to kick some ass. Wait and see when she is on the national stage - she will wow everyone that has not seen her take on the issues!!

She is a liberal, but also a politician, so she can win!

She's a Wellesley grad, supports universal health care, got elected as a senator in a state she barely lived in, after her husband humiliated her in front of the world - she is damn smart and can get shit done. GO HILLARY.

Posted by LIN | January 13, 2007 4:56 PM

HILLARY 08!!! She is going to kick some ass. Wait and see when she is on the national stage - she will wow everyone that has not seen her take on the issues!!

She is a liberal, but also a politician, so she can win!

She's a Wellesley grad, supports universal health care, got elected as a senator in a state she barely lived in, after her husband humiliated her in front of the world - she is damn smart and can get shit done. GO HILLARY.

Posted by LIN | January 13, 2007 4:57 PM

Apologies, but this post and the commentary following it are the most worthless political discourse I could imagine from people to the left of Mussolini.

Oh yeah and uh, Hillary Clinton does in fact suck.

Posted by john | January 13, 2007 7:05 PM

Yes, Hillary was able to win over rural voters in NY with a lot of time and effort. The point is you don't have time to do that in a presidential election, it's all about the superficial and the headline. And the looney right will pull out every Hillary comment or act that was even slightly questionable, spin it like crazy, and it will resonate. Trust me, a Hillary run would be another Mondale-scale loss for the Democrats, no matter what Bush screws up between now and then.

Posted by Mrobvious | January 13, 2007 7:33 PM

As a note... Obama has more potential to draw new voters in the south than any other candidate. Regarding the election in tennessee, harold ford took nashville by a landslide in the election, but only after obama had stumped for him there. I hate to simplify the issue, but Obama represents a significant portion of the southern population that has failed in recent years to vote in significant numbers, namely black (or any minority) christians.

Posted by aaron | January 13, 2007 10:57 PM

Personally, I just can't get excited by yet another Bush/Clinton dynasty choice.

Time to return to America's roots as a nation that reinvents ourselves and fights against monarchies. Especially our current ones.

That said, I'm glad even the GOP is starting to field anti-Iraq-war candidates - about time! Right now I'm hoping for a Gore/Obama 2008 ticket ... but Edwards seems to be doing well.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 14, 2007 6:10 PM

Two words - pro war.....

Her lack of integrity on the war demonstrates what many people feel about her - she lacks a political center. What exactly does she stand for? I don't care if she is electable or not. I will not support her.

Posted by charmer | January 15, 2007 12:53 PM

soqpciwh jonfw tlxay zonse ramc qjwny rufjeyo

Posted by zled ofpyxr | February 1, 2007 5:38 PM

soqpciwh jonfw tlxay zonse ramc qjwny rufjeyo

Posted by zled ofpyxr | February 1, 2007 5:40 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).