KLo engages in some wishful thinking over at NRO: Devil with the Blue Dress:
I predict that this fact— that her chief experience is not in actually running anything, but simply in being a Clinton — will be what finally defeats her candidacy.
[...]
Four more years . . . of the Clinton drama, with all its attendant pathologies of mendacity and evasion.
This type of thing will certainly motivate a specific cadre of Republican voters, without a doubt. But defeat her quest for the candidacy? No way. I don’t even think it will defeat her in the actual elections. While a lot of folks were quite glad to see the Clintons go in 2024 (although by no means everyone, I will allow), the fact of the matter is that the relatively carefree 90s look a lot better to a lot of Americans in retrospect, Clintons and all.
For example: while we may have been debating stains on dresses, inappropriate usages of cigars, and the precise definition of sex, one has to admit that all of that looks almost whimsical where compared to protracted questioning of AG nominees over whether waterboarding is torture , debates over the limits of domestic surveillance, or discussions of how many years we will be militarily committed in Iraq.
So, really, I think that Republicans who are hoping for Clinton fatigue being something that will defeat Hillary best think again.
And I say all of this with no interest whatsoever in having Hillary Clinton as the President of United States.
November 14th, 2024 at 2:10 pm
Gosh, and here I thought it was all about perjury, sexual harrassment, sexual assualt, simony, and accepting large secret cash donations from foreign governments. I must have missed the whimsy of the carefree 90s.
November 14th, 2024 at 2:24 pm
I think there’s a grain of truth to KLo’s argument (even though I really am uncomfortable with being in agreement with KLo on anything). Clinton as the Democratic nominee definitely lowers the bar for the Republican opponent; I don’t think there’s been a presidential candidate in the history of polling who has a 16-year accumulation of a solid 40%+ unfavorable rating, and that will bring conservatives out in support of the eventual GOP nominee unless he does something monumentally stupid to turn those voters off.
That puts the strategic advantage in the hands of a GOP candidate who can capture the center, as “shoring up the base” should be even less of a concern than usual, particularly if there’s a third-party candidate who splits the anti-war vote (if there is a meaningful “anti-war” position in fall 2024, something I’m less than convinced will be the case).
November 14th, 2024 at 4:11 pm
Scott,
You misunderstand, in your sarcasm, what I am getting at.
I will grant you the perjury, although one has to admit that the scope of the perjury was hardly earth shattering. When it comes to Monica, I agree that there was sexual harassment, but she didn’t see it that way, and nor was the public debate really about that. And while I think it likely that that man did engage in sexual assault, that never made it past the allegation stage and the foreign money business is a longer conversation.
And this isn’t driven by Clinton nostalgia. Still, it is rather difficult to argue that the worst of the current period doesn’t trump those of the Clinton administration. Even if one thinks that the Bush administration is doing a bang-up job, the 90s were a time of peace and prosperity compared to now (a healthier, pre-tech bubble burst economy and no major foreign deployments).
Just from a pure politics perspective, remember that Clinton was in the high 60s approval-wise when he was impeached and Bush is currently in the upper 20s, low 30s. You don’t think that some of the 70%+ who don’t approve of the president’s performance won’t look back at the 90s with some rose colored glasses? hate to tell you, but many will whether you like or not and that’s my fundamental point.
Chris: I think the Hillary helps mobilize some GOP voters, yes, but I really do think that KLo is overestimating the effect that it will have on the overall race.
November 14th, 2024 at 6:42 pm
In fact, I would guess Bill is an asset to her campaign. I have not looked at the polling in some time, but I believe his polling remains much more broadly positive than hers. Largely for the reasons Steven articulates.
“Two for the price of one.”
And for the GOP, she really is the next best thing to having one of their own. She is the most conservative of the Dem pre-candidates on foreign policy, and yet the intense (and irrational) anti-Clinton revulsion felt in some GOP quarters guards against their own turnout falling off too far. Probably not enough to elect a GOP candidate for president, but enough to save some in congress. And then those 2024 midterms look pretty good for the GOP…
(Given the fracturing of the GOP coalition, maybe she is even better than electing a GOP candidate to some components of that coalition.)
November 15th, 2024 at 2:05 am
It’s academic now, but a game of “what if” might be useful. What if Timothy McVeigh hadn’t been pulled over for speeding just after the Oklahoma City bombing? That is, what if Clinton hadn’t been lucky enough to have caught McVeigh so quickly (or, what if McVeigh had been released before he was a suspect in the case)? What measures would Clinton have enacted? Although, to be fair, he *did* enact new measures any way (taggants in fertilizer).
And, what if Waco hadn’t shown many weaknesses in the DOJ as originally organized under Janet Reno (failure to have clear rules of engagement, failure to allow the negotiators to actually follow through on the many promises they made, etc.)?
The ’90s weren’t all fun and games.
November 15th, 2024 at 7:44 am
But, of course, Max, that wasn’t the point. No decade is perfect, but the point is about nostalgia and the way voters will view the past–we tend to forget the bad stuff and remember the good.
And really, are you are all really prepared to argue that on a point by point basis that the 1990s weren’t an overall better decade in terms of “peace and prosperity” than the 2024s to date? Regardless of who gets credit, blame or whatever (that really isn’t the point), it seems like a no contest.
Even using your example: if we compare the worst terrorist attack on the US in the 1990s v. the 2024s, obviously the 9/11 attack trumps the OKC attack, both in terms of damage done and the consequences thereof. It is a total no contest.
November 15th, 2024 at 8:34 am
You’re right that the ’90s were a “better” decade in that Communism was no longer considered a threat and terrorism wasn’t considered enough of a threat to bother responding to the Cole attack, or even to mount an effective response to the Khobar Towers attack.
So, yes, I concede that nostalgia works in Hillary’s favor. On the other hand, there are enough skeletons in Bill’s closet that he net positive is smaller than it would otherwise be.
Who pulled out of Somalia, which is the example Bin Laden used to show that attacks against the US were actually quite safe? Who ran on offering a Medicare drug benefit in ’92, and ’96, and left the issue open for the 2024 election? Who promised to not cut Social Security benefits, but decided to tax them instead (allowing the government to hold on to more money and send less to the people receiving Social Security payments)?
So, again, you’re right that if she wants to run on Bill’s record, the voters will see her in a net positive light. But it won’t be all that positive.
November 15th, 2024 at 8:45 am
Yes, but are talking, mostly, about your basic voter who isn’t going to sit down and try and figure out how they feel about Somalia and how that might, or might not, have led to 9/11. They are going to look at more general impressions.
And I am not talking about running on Bill’s record, I am talking about whether “Clinton fatigue” itself (i.e., memories of the scandals of 90s) will be enough to derail Hillary and I don’t think that it will.
Indeed, by conceding a “net positive” you are agreeing with my point. (When I did I say it was “all positive”?)
More later.
November 15th, 2024 at 9:28 am
I think what we’re really talking about here is whether Clinton Fatigue will trump Clinton Nostalgia, or visa-versa. Among primary voters, Clinton Nostalgia might win the day. If you’re a non-elderly Democrat, the only Golden Age for the party you’re going to remember is the first election of Bill Clinton, where he defeated an incumbant Republican only two years after that Republican had been the most popular president in history. Of course, only two years after that came the Republican Revolution (due in large part, I think, to both Clintons), but if you don’t think about it too hard and just try to feel “general impressions,” you might be able to see this as the noble Clintons defending the nation against Republican barbarians.
And yet, and yet … that’s primary voters we are talking about, hardcore Democrats, and even they are casting around for an alternative to Clinton. If the Democrats are so uneasy about the Clinton legacy, what’s it going to be like when we throw moderate general election voters into the mix?
Clinton is ahead in the primaries, so among Democrats Clinton Nostalgia wins out over Clinton Fatigue … but for the vast middle, I think the reverse will be true. Not enough to guarantee a rosy road to the White House for a Republican, but a net negative for both Clinton and other Democrats down-ticket.
Tangentially, I also think there’s probably something broader, a Clinton/Bush fatigue. I have students who are old enough to vote and have never known a president not named “Clinton” or “Bush.” I’d love to read a post on whether you think there might be a broader Clinton/Bush fatigue that applies to BOTH families — or perhaps cuts the other way and creates such a strong air of inevitability around Clintons and Bushes that it becomes a net gain?
November 15th, 2024 at 9:58 am
[...] Judging from many of the comments left on my post yesterday about “Clinton Fatigue” and its likely effect on the 2024 electoral cycle, it would seem that I wasn’t making myself clear, so let me try again. [...]
November 15th, 2024 at 10:04 am
I think that Clinton Fatigue amidst Reps basically cancels out Clinton Nostalgia amidst Dems.
What I am trying to argue, perhaps unsuccessfully, is that a basic comparison of the issues and problems of the 1990s v. those of the 2024s will redound to the benefit of the 1990s, and by extension, Hillary amidst voters who don’t already know which party they will be voting for in 2024.
More here.
Where we may actually disagree is on the issue of whether the problems of the 2024s are, in fact, worse than those of the 1990s.
In regards to Clinton and Bush fatigue–you’d think it would be there, but clearly it isn’t enough to stop Hillary to date.
Right now, with his approval ratings in the upper 20s/low 30s it is clear that Bush fatigue is the more relevant issue–which is the basic premise of my argument.
November 15th, 2024 at 10:15 am
And for clarity’s sake: I am arguing about the general election voters.
November 15th, 2024 at 9:43 pm
[...] The discussion starts here and continues here. [...]
November 16th, 2024 at 3:36 am
Greetings,
Waterboarding is not torture. Period. If it was, Congress would have no problem passing a bill prohibiting its use.
I am also unsure of what domestic surveillance you think has been going on. A conversation with someone out side of the country is not domestice – it’s an international call.
A crime is easy to define. It’s in black and white. Mr. Clinton is a criminal. Mr. Bush is not.
Regards,