Poll Shows No Matter which Clinton Shows Up She will Kick GOP Azs
One could argue that Saturday’s big rally at Roosevelt Island was Hillary Clinton’s second famous try for a “reset.”
And very much like her failed attempt at détente with Russia, the relaunch of her Presidential bid might have also botched the translation. More on that in a minute.
“HILLARY CLINTON'S LIBERAL LURCH IS LESS RADICAL THAN MEETS THE EYE"
In the years leading up to Clinton’s inevitable second run at the White House, one question remained: which Hillary would show up?
Would it be the Hillary of the past, whose husband pulled the Democratic party to the center? Who used to praise her husband’s successful efforts at welfare reform — a term I don’t think Democrats are even allowed to utter today. Who boasted that he lowered abortion rates, and championed the idea of making abortion “safe, legal and rare,” another construction that’s since been moved from the Democratic party’s charter.
HILLARY CLINTON'S SONG LIST GIVES FOES REASON TO ATTACK
The Hillary who happily allied with Wall Street interests?
Or would a new Hillary show up, not the one who happily allied with Wall St. interests but a new version who’s been pulled to the left by fringe elements of her party?
Saturday we got the answer. Meet “Far Left Hillary,” who in her speech made numerous scowling references to the very “CEOs” and “hedge fund managers” who used to fund her campaigns and pay for her speeches. To even more closely mirror progressive darling Elizabeth Warren, her speech was littered with derisive mentions of “billionaires,” “corporations,” “Big Business,” “short term trading,” “trading schemes,” and “quick trades.” (Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who less than two years ago told a Goldman Sachs audience that banker bashing was unproductive and foolish.)
Far Left Hillary also threw out the requisite references in the new progressive Democratic landscape to gay marriage, reproductive choice, climate change, a pathway to citizenship, raising the minimum wage, and overturning Citizens United.
As Glenn Thrush wrote in Politico, “She has embraced the language of grievance, if not the specific policies of the pitchfork left.”
Conventional wisdom might suggest that this is a good strategy. She’s running in a primary, after all, and the last Democratic president won by running to the left of her.
You hear it daily: Hillary needs to convince progressives that she’s like them now. You hear that having Bernie Sanders in the race, for example, might compel her to run farther left.
This is, however, a huge mistake. For a few good reasons.
For one, there aren’t enough progressives to matter.
While liberal thought leaders insist that progressivism is sweeping the nation, Clinton would be unwise to drink the Kool-Aid. The Democratic primary electorate is far more moderate, as Nate Cohn wrote in The Upshot. Outside of influential liberal enclaves, “the party includes a large number of less educated, more religious — often older, Southern or nonwhite — voters who are far from uniformly liberal.” Further, he says, “the majority of Democrats and Democratic primary voters are self-described moderates or conservatives,” according to analysis of Pew survey data and exit polls.
Another reason Hillary doesn’t need to run left? She’s likeable enough, as Obama might say. Even with all the scandals and the baggage, and Democrats’ admitted distrust and skepticism that she can deliver a new progressive agenda, most report they’d be “very satisfied” if she were the only Democratic candidate, according to the latest Economist/YouGov poll. That’s right — they don’t even want a primary!
Third: Elizabeth Warren is hardly a kingmaker, at least not outside of Massachusetts. In 2014, her star power wasn’t enough to help elect a number of Democrats she campaigned for, including Michelle Nunn, Bruce Braley, Natalie Tennant, Mark Udall, Wendy Davis, Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu, Alison Lundergan Grimes and Rick Weiland.
But the biggest reason Centrist Hillary is a much, much smarter strategy than Far Left Hillary — and as a conservative I’m loathe to admit this — Centrist Hillary is worse for the GOP.
On any number of issues, Clinton running to the left of Obama is a boon for Republicans. For example, instead of promising to legalize more immigrants via executive order than Obama, running slightly to his right puts her more in line with where voters are on the issue, and forces Republicans to run farther to the right, lest they be categorized with her.
Hillary misses a huge opportunity to make Republicans look extreme if she cedes the middle to them. While some will undoubtedly still hit the gas to the far-right, the smarter Republican candidates can take advantage of this newly available real estate that still keeps them on the right, but appeals to more voters.
With a small but vocal minority telling Hillary she needs to move left, it’s not surprising she took the bait. It might please Warren’s fans, but believe me — it pleases Republicans more.
BY S.E. CUPP
Comments