Drag Queen

The New Republic

You have read:

0 / 8

free articles in the past 30 days.

Already a subscriber?

Log in here

sign up for unlimited access for just $34.97Sign me up

POLITICS NOVEMBER 30, 2007

Drag Queen

Even with Barack Obama looking
more and more competitive in the fast-approaching Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton remains the
prohibitive favorite to win the 2008 Democratic nomination. But that hasn’t
quieted the grumbling--hell, downright speechifying--from some Democrats that if she
were to become the nominee, Clinton
would drag down Democratic chances in congressional and local elections in ways
that neither of her main opponents (Obama and Senator John Edwards) ever could.
“If Hillary comes to the state of Missouri,
we can write it off,” warned
Missouri House Minority Whip Connie Johnson, an Edwards supporter, last October.
“I’m not sure it would be fatal in Indiana,
but she would be a drag,” Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of nearby Indiana told the AP in
August.

While there are plenty of other
reasons not to vote for her, concerns about Clinton’s down-ballot drag are overwrought.
Though she could have a marginal effect on a few races here and there, our
electoral system has become so shock-absorbent that presidential candidates barely
have a down-ballet effect anymore. In 2004 George W. Bush posted what by
today’s lights was a solid win, and yet what coattails did he have? The
Republicans made no net gain among governors; they added four U.S. senators
(their biggest achievement) and a mere four U.S. house seats; and they lost
about five dozen state legislative seats overall and net control of four state
legislative chambers. Not since Gary Coleman last donned a tuxedo have we seen
coattails this short.

Partly, this is a consequence of
states holding their elections in non-presidential cycles. Only 11 states elect
their governors in presidential years, and in many states, some or all seats in
either state legislative chamber are off the ballot. Meanwhile, the
increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering of both national and state
legislative districts further limits the ability of presidential candidacies to
ramify down-ballot. Finally, because straight party-line voting is on the rise,
the performance and approval of presidential candidates is less likely to cause
partisan defections in other races. So, whether Hillary Clinton is a greater
asset or liability than Edwards or Obama is secondary to the fact that neither
she nor they are likely to have much effect on their fellow Democratic
office-seekers.

Those who warn about “Clinton drag” point to
her poll numbers. As Karl Rove noted in his inaugural online column for Newsweek, “For a front-runner in an open
race for the presidency, she has the highest negatives in history.” But a
closer look shows that, on many measures, she fares no worse and often a bit
better than Obama and Edwards. Take the latest USA Today/Gallup poll,
which shows that her national favorability rating of 52 percent is
statistically identical to Obama’s 53 percent and John Edwards’ 50. Democrats
rate her higher in terms of “leadership” ability (88 percent; Obama, 68
percent; Edwards, 64 percent), though Republicans rate her lower (22 percent,
40 percent and 33 percent, respectively). The case against Clinton is usually pegged to her
favorable/unfavorable splits. Typical of this trend is the latest Fox News/Opinion
Dynamics poll,
which shows Clinton with a +3 favorable/unfavorable margin (49 percent to 46
percent), compared to Obama at +16 (50 percent to 34 percent) and Edwards at
+11 (46 percent to 35 percent).

In short, while Americans view
Clinton about as favorably as they do her two chief rivals, Democrats think she
is a better leader, Republicans think she’d make a worse leader, and a greater
share of voters who do not approve of her actually disapprove of her--which sounds
like a redundancy, but is not when you realize that many voters have neither a
favorable nor unfavorable view of Obama or Edwards. If either of them wins the
nomination, however, don’t doubt for a second that the Republican machine can’t
or won’t ratchet up their negatives later.

Still, is there something unique
about Clinton
that could put other 2008 Democratic candidates at risk? The strongest claim to
that is she’s an uncommonly unifying figure--for Republicans and the right.
So while the intensity of Clinton
hatred may not multiply a voter’s vote, it could motivate citizens to engage in
other ways, such as donating to Republican candidates, walking precincts, or
persuading their friends and co-workers to vote against Clinton and other Democrats.
Such activities have the potential to alter the composition of the electorate
from the one currently being polled--with potentially damaging ramifications
for Democratic candidates in close races.

But at the heart of the Clinton drag thesis is the notion, typified by the
comments from the Missouri
and Indiana Democrats above, that she will disproportionately hurt Democrats
running in red states or red areas of blue states. This is in sharp contrast to
Obama, who it seems
like
everyday
benefits from a story about his “red state appeal,” his ability to draw in people
who typically wouldn’t vote Democratic. Let’s presume for a moment that Clinton would be a drag. What
down-ballot races would she likely affect?

Of the 11 gubernatorial races,
three Democrats (Montana’s Brian Schweitzer, New Hampshire’s John Lynch, West
Virginia’s Joe Manchin) and three Republicans (North
Dakota’s John Hoeven, Utah’s Jon
Huntsman, Vermont’s
Jim Douglas) are safe incumbents likely to be re-elected no matter what. Contests
that could be affected include the re-election bids of Washington Democrat
Christine Gregoire, Republicans Matt Blunt of Missouri
and Mitch Daniels of Indiana, and the race to
replace term-limited Democrat Mike Easley in North Carolina. Blunt’s head-to-head numbers
against expected Democratic nominee Jay Nixon are probably too lousy to matter,
but Washington and Indiana are swing states that might be influenced by the
presidential campaigns. So, at worst, Clinton
could make it slightly tougher for Democrats to re-elect Gregoire, unseat
Daniels, and replace Easley. On that latter count, the nomination of Tar Heel
native Edwards might be more helpful.

Turning to the Senate, Democrats
Jeanne Shaheen and Mark Warner look solid in New Hampshire
and Virginia.
The races most likely to be affected by presidential politics included two with
endangered Republican incumbents (Norm Coleman in Minnesota,
Gordon Smith in Oregon), and two where
Republican retirements in Colorado and New Mexico have provided
Democrats with great pickup opportunities. In the two southwestern open-seat
races, Edwards and Obama might be less helpful down-ballot than Clinton, who
enjoys strong support among Hispanics. In the other two, Clinton could cause
problems for Democrats in culturally conservative northern Minnesota and
eastern Oregon, but probably no more so than Obama--the perceived difference
between the two is likely quite small among white rural voters. Again, only
Edwards might have some positive impact here. As for U.S. House races, though
too numerous to discuss in detail, the wave of Republican retirements--10
announced so far in Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey and New Mexico alone--will turn
many of the key races into referenda on the quality of the parties’ House, not
presidential, nominees.

There is one other key factor to consider: Hillary’s
support among women--the one demographic that is disbursed evenly across almost
every precinct, county, and state in the nation--could even make her a
down-ballot asset in 2008, especially if she can turn out under-mobilized,
unmarried female voters. But the fact is that neither she nor her main rivals
will provide a significant drag or lift for Democratic office-seekers. Pantsuits don’t have coattails anyway, so perhaps it is appropriate that a woman
could become the first major-party presidential nominee at a time when
presidential candidates don’t pull many fellow partisans into office with them.

Thomas F. Schaller is an associate professor of political science at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County and is the author of Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South.

 

 

By Thomas F. Schaller

share this article on facebook or twitter

posted in: politics

print this article

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Back to Top

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK