 |
| Hillary Rodham Clinton at an event for Emily's List in Washington on Tuesday. Credit Jabin Botsford/The New York Times |
N.Y. TIMES, NATE COHEN
Hillary Clinton is a primary candidate whose strength has little precedent, one who seems poised to sweep the primaries without facing any serious challenge.
The general election is a different story. Mrs. Clinton would not cruise to victory, and, yes, she could easily lose.
In the aftermath of President Obama’s re-election, it was common to suggest that Mrs. Clinton was an unusually formidable general election candidate, and the polls seemed to back it up. Her favorability ratings soared to the mid-60s during her tenure as secretary of state. In hypothetical head-to-head polling matchups, she even led in places such as Texas against home-state candidates like Rick Perry. Feeding the perception of her strength was the notion that Democrats had an advantage in presidential elections, given their sway among growing parts of the electorate, like young and nonwhite voters, and their apparent Electoral College advantage.
But Mrs. Clinton will not be a Democratic Eisenhower, a popular, senior statesperson who cruises to an easy victory. Her popularity has already faded considerably over the last two years. Her support could erode even further as the campaign unfolds, or as she comes under new scrutiny, be it for foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, her private email account as secretary of state or new issues.
As many analysts predicted, her high ratings were unsustainable — her popularity the product of serving as the country’s top diplomat, partly shielded from domestic political criticism. Her ratings have returned to earth since her exit from the position in early 2013 — and since she has emerged as the likely Democratic nominee in the 2016 presidential election.
The polls now show her favorability rating beneath 50 percent, making her a fairly typical candidate for the presidency. Her numbers are much more similar to Mr. Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s ratings in late 2012 than her own ratings from two years ago. She has, in other words, gone back to being what Mr. Obama’s supporters alleged in 2008: a polarizing figure, just as Mr. Obama is today.
What’s notable about the recent decline in her approval rating is that it has returned to Mrs. Clinton’s apparently natural level of public support.
Her ratings started out high as first lady in 1993, as is often the case with that role, but dropped to the mid-40s when she pursued health reform. Her ratings surged during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but returned to the mid-40s once she ran for Senate, and remained there through her 2008 presidential campaign. Her ratings recovered again after she withdrew from the 2008 race and was no longer active in day-to-day politics.
There is little about Mrs. Clinton’s electoral history that suggests she’s a stronger candidate than these ratings. As a Senate candidate in New York in 2000, she ran well behind Al Gore’s presidential election numbers in New York that year. Few defend her performance in the 2008 presidential primaries. If anything, the extent to which she was criticized by the left has largely been forgotten. As Slate’s Alec MacGillis put it, there is “a sort of collective amnesia among Obama supporters when it comes to their former estimation of Clinton — a reluctance to reckon fully with their aversion to her then and what has come of it since.”
 |
| Photo by Andrew Kelly/Reuters |
Although it’s true that Democrats have fared well in recent presidential elections, there is no guarantee their success will continue. In 2016, the Democratic nominee will have to argue for a third term for the party... At the moment, Mr. Obama’s approval ratings and the pace of economic growth are consistent with a close, competitive race...
There were signs in last year’s midterm elections that dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama’s performance was costing Democrats among white voters without a college degree, most obviously in the countryside of Iowa and Colorado. Those 2014 results suggest that Republicans have a route to winning the White House, even if it’s a narrower one than the Democrats’ path.
Yes, Mrs. Clinton has a large lead over her likeliest Republican challengers in national polls, including in many of the most important battleground states. But general-election polls more than a year before Election Day have little meaning...
There is also evidence, especially in state polling, that Mrs. Clinton’s support from traditionally Democratic, white, conservative voters is unsustainable — especially in the South and Appalachia.
None of this is not to say that Mrs. Clinton is a weak candidate. Mr. Obama won re-election, after all, despite evolving into a polarizing figure. Her favorability rating is better than that of any of her Republican opponents, who are all poised to become just as polarizing as she. There is a case that she will be a better candidate than she was in 2008, when she was widely caricatured as calculating and unlikable. Many believed that she was already a much stronger candidate by the time the 2008 campaign was over.
 |
| (Matt Rourke/AP Photo) |
If Mrs. Clinton does prove to be a particularly adept candidate, given how close the race shapes up to be, it could make a significant difference. But at least for now, her favorability ratings don’t resemble those of an especially strong candidate. The better argument for her strength would be the demographic advantages of today’s Democratic coalition.
If the Democrats have such an advantage, then Mrs. Clinton, a person who has engendered great loyalty from many Democratic-leaning voters, may be the candidate best positioned to reassemble that coalition...