Humbly suggested: You’re all wrong, always

Jump to Comments

The elusive ‘moderate’ enjoys a privileged position in theoretical politics, but it’s a privilege that reality does not recognize. Everyone wants to vote for a ‘moderate,’ mostly because no one wants to portray their candidate – and by extension, their own politics – as fringe or radical, but rather as an accurate standard barer of the American political milieu. It’s an easy assumption to make; when approximately 30 percent of voters in any given election are registered Democrats and 30 percent are registered Republicans, our first assumption is that the 40 percent of voters who are ostensibly “independent” are voters whose politics place them in the middle of Democrats and Republicans. The assumption that ‘independent’ and ‘moderate’ mean the same thing is the critical error. Isn’t it just as possible that, instead of being a moderate caught between two extremes, these independent voters are in large numbers true swing voters who will vote for any candidate for a seemingly random reason? Democrats have a reason to be Democrats and Republicans have a reason to be Republicans (usually issue based). Independents are voters without a reason. They may vote for someone because they look good, want to have a drink with them, or because they think one candidate is better on a reason de jour like gay marriage. But viewing moderates as a cohesive voting base with moderate views is off base.

The conventional logic which leads us to imagine a corps of moderate centerist voters caught between the Democrats and the Republicans would have us believe that a moderate candidate would be unstoppable. A moderate Democrat could bank the support of some 60 million registered Democrats and the vast support of the moderate center and strong cross-over support of moderate Republicans would sweep them to a landslide victory. This conventional logic is, for the most part, how modern campaigns are run: solidify the base in the primary than move to the center during the general to win the “moderate independent” vote. But it’s simply not how people vote; in fact, it assumes that independent voters vote like party-affiliated voters, making a decision based on how closely a given candidate shares ones’ values. But if the average independent voter had that slate of consistent beliefs, they’d probably have aligned themselves with a party, as (let’s face it) political views aren’t heterogeneous enough to reasonably allow someone who votes on abortion or tax policy to not realize which party best represents their beliefs.

Taking this new knowledge, consider this: True moderate candidates get screwed. Moving off the party line will only succeed alienating segments of your own base (that’s not entirely true, you’ll at least impress David Broder). At the national level, there is simply not enough cross-over support to make up for the loss of one’s own base to make it politically worth your while. And there is also no guarantee that your moderate positions will win over independent voters anymore than if you have an inspiring backstory or a cute puppy.

Now, it’s time for the shocking thesis: Hillary and Bill Clinton are the consummate moderate politicians. If you’re initial reaction to this statement is projectile vomiting, or the exclamation “Hillary is the queen of the radical abortionist left!” feel free to leave now; I apologize for your having this far, although you really should have known better. (I used the word “milieu” for Christ’s sake! Milieu!) My point is this: Bill and especially Hillary deviate from the traditional Democratic base in ways that have been shown to alienate more liberal voters. Hillary’s vote and subsequent stance on the Iraq War is a perfect example.

Now, it would seem that Bill Clinton’s two easy victories would confirm the conventional logic of the moderate independent. But what won the independent vote that propelled two Clinton victories? Was it his policies or “the man from Hope.” Did he run on NAFTA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, or did he run on “building a bridge to the 21st century”? Bill Clinton had what it took to win independent voters: A storyline they could latch onto.

Perhaps this is all a pedantic way of saying I’m not much of a Hillary Clinton fan. But that might not mean what you think it means; I’m not much of a fan of Joe Lieberman either, but I tended to support him in 2006 because, though he was never Mr. Right, he may have been Mr. Right Now, although I have since developed some doubts. But my general ambivalence to Hillary didn’t stop me from finding this interesting. While the media has adopted the Karl Rove assessment of Hillary being unstoppable in the primary, unelectable in the general and backed this assessment with poll numbers showing “frighteningly” high disapproval ratings, the Gallop Polling firm sought to remind us of many a cliche aphorism on statistics, by bringing some much needed perspective to the approval/disapproval numbers.

Here we see the highest point of disapproval for each candidate during the last two presidential elections:

2004 election
George W. Bush
Jan 29-Feb 1
Approval: 52
Disapproval: 47

John Kerry
Oct 14-16
Approval: 52
Disapproval: 45

2000 (including post-election vote count controversy period)
George W. Bush
Nov 13-15
Approval: 53
Disapproval: 43

Al Gore
Dec 2-4
Approval: 46
Disapproval: 52

The high point of Hillary’s disapproval was 53 percent disapproval in 2001, a number which has dropped 10 points to 43 percent disapproval as of August 2007. You’ll notice that her numbers are actually lower than the last two winners of the presidential popular vote (Bush, 47 percent in 2006, and Gore, 52 percent in 2000). Quite to the contrary of the impression that Hillary is completely unlikeable, these numbers would seem to suggest that she is completely average for a well-exposed politician.

While Hillary’s numbers seem mundane compared to other established politicians, it’s surprising to see her negative marks matched by a lesser known candidate, as a recent Rasmussen poll shows for Republican Mitt Romney, who registers a 44 percent “definitely against” rating, with only a 13 percent “definitely for” number.

So while she’s not unelectable, Hillary’s moderate stances have still alienated her from parts of her base, and she won’t be able to recoup those losses unless she can find her bridge to the 21st century, her “man from Hope” story. The whole having ovaries thing might be a good start.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized