Hillary nostalgia peaking in new Bloomberg poll

posted at 8:45 am on September 16, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

At least, Barack Obama has to hope it’s peaking, rather than continuing to build.  Bloomberg headlines the poll results with an explicit slam at Obama: “Clinton Popularity Prompts Buyer’s Remorse.”  So far, the numbers aren’t overwhelming, but they are growing:

The most popular national political figure in America today is one who was rejected by her own party three years ago: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans hold a favorable view of her and one-third are suffering a form of buyer’s remorse, saying the U.S. would be better off now if she had become president in 2008 instead of Barack Obama.

The finding in the latest Bloomberg National Poll shows a higher level of wishful thinking about a Hillary Clinton presidency than when a similar question was asked in July 2010. Then, a quarter of Americans held such a view.

How nostalgic have we gotten for the Clintons?  (And doesn’t seeing that in writing seem a little … disturbing?) Not as much as one might think, given the headline.  In this poll, 34% think that life would have been better under a Hillary Clinton presidency, including almost half (44%) of self-described Tea Partiers.  Only 13% think it would have been worse, which could be a little hard to imagine at the moment anyway.  A large plurality of 47% thinks it would make no difference.

Frankly, I’m not sure whether I think it would be better or the same.  Given the fact that Hillary tried pushing a health-care system overhaul even worse in some aspects than ObamaCare when given a chance, I don’t think that we’d have avoided the outcome in that policy field we have now.  In fact, given that Hillary would have been more adept at working with Congress than Captain Kick-Ass, we may very well have wound up with the “public option” to boot while Democrats had 60 seats in the Senate.  Otherwise, the economic and regulatory policies would have been roughly the same; the only difference would have been that Democrats would be accusing their opponents of sexism rather than racism for opposing them.

However, this kind of nostalgia could prove a potent political force, especially if Democrats decide that Obama simply cannot win a second term and will do a lot of damage to down-ticket races in 2012.  There is no way Hillary will run a primary campaign against Obama, and we’re rapidly running out of time for any Democrat to run a realistic campaign to knock him off of the 2012 general-election ballot.  But if Obama surprises people and pulls out on his own — as John Fund speculated yesterday and I speculated last month — a Hillary run ceases being bad news for Obama and starts becoming a Republican nightmare:

She can step into the void with promises to return America to the economic policies of her husband.  The Left may not have much love for Hillary any longer, but she was winning the very working-class Democrats in the 2008 primaries that Obama is losing to the Republicans now.  States like Pennsylvania and Michigan would snap back into place for Democrats, and perhaps Wisconsin as well.  Having Obama off the top of the ticket would take some of the downward pressure off of some other Senate races, and Hillary would likely be a plus in most.

If Hillary took Obama’s place in 2012, Republicans would face a much tougher electoral map.  They would still have the advantage of running against Obama’s record, but the GOP may not capture that disaffected Democratic working-class vote if Hillary also ran against Obamanomics and promised a return to Clintonian prosperity.  The eventual Republican nominee would have at least a tougher task in winning those votes and the White House.  And even if Hillary lost in a general election — Democrats lost the White House in 1952 and 1968, coincidentally both times with Richard Nixon on the Republican tickets — the Democrats might save a few Senate seats with an improved turnout in key states.

Still, this is a very low probability outcome … for now.  It’s hard to imagine anyone offering the “if you love me” line at public rallies deciding on his own to veer into a quiet retirement, and if Democrats are seen as pushing Obama out of a second run, it could very well split the party for years to come.  But when Hillary nostalgia starts becoming a bigger cultural phenomenon and Obama’s polls keep sliding into Bush territory, those low probabilities might have to get adjusted upward.

Update: Maybe it’s just ingratitude.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

How nostalgic have we gotten for the Clintons?

Who is this “we” you speak of?

Cindy Munford on September 16, 2011 at 8:48 AM

Yep, the 3am call came – and the Community Organizer-in-Chief was found seriously wanting…

TheRightMan on September 16, 2011 at 8:49 AM

It begins. The Dems are warming the voters up to the idea of Hil in ’12.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 16, 2011 at 8:50 AM

Too late.

For the Dems to off-load Obama under any conditions (primary challenge or ‘asking’ him to step aside) they have to admit that opposition to Obama is not – by definition – racist.

Once that card is pulled from the house they’ve built, it all comes tumbling down. They’ll never, NEVER surrender on that point.

Oppose Obama, Obama’s policies, Obama’s ideas or Obama’s destruction of the United States, and you’re a racist. Period.

They can NOT afford to destroy that narrative – even if it they’re stuck with Obama.

Why are mad scientists always surprised when the monster they created ends up turning on them?

Washington Nearsider on September 16, 2011 at 8:50 AM

I think people are not so nostalgic for the Clintons. I think much of the country is fed up with all liberals as illustrated by this attack. *Warning – Graphic Image

http://themorningspew.com/2011/09/16/warning-graphic-image/

bloggless on September 16, 2011 at 8:53 AM

No way would they pressure Obama to not seek another term. The black vote would stay home in 2012 in protest, and they would lose for sure. Without the black block vote, no democrat could win any election. And who would want to be the democrat nominee knowing they would just suffer the humiliation of losing, and doing so in place of the man who was supposed to suffer the humiliation himself? No serious democrat wants to be a pinata in 2012, while 2008′s golden boy scuttles off like a coward to avoid his medicine.

keep the change on September 16, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Like she’d have done any better.

Tony737 on September 16, 2011 at 8:55 AM

The $hit eaters miss the $hit they used to eat.
Not surprising.
Bcs since they have no taste in the first place, they become connoisseurs of $hit and so only choose to dine on $hit.
So it’s no wonder they prefer one variation of $hit over another.
But to the rest of us with taste, $hit is $hit.
And it’s all just bad.

Badger40 on September 16, 2011 at 8:55 AM

She can step into the void with promises to return America to the economic policies of her husband.

No doubt your typical Democrat voter would be dumb enough to think Hillary could set off another internet boom.

MNHawk on September 16, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Hillary wouldn’t have had the super high numbers that Obama had at the beginning of his presidency. She would have also had Bill to hold her back from the far left policies of Obama. As much as I hate to say it, we, as a country, would have been better off with Hillary.

cozmo on September 16, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Hillary has a track record of FAIL that’s almost as impressive as Obama’s. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, I guess.

Cicero43 on September 16, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Alternate: Racism on the Rise in Tea Party America

mankai on September 16, 2011 at 8:57 AM


She can step into the void with promises to return America to the economic policies of her husband.

Um, don’t you mean the economic policies of the ‘Pub Congreff?

Tony737 on September 16, 2011 at 8:57 AM

I reported Hillary to Attack Watch for being a potential threat to Obama’s re-election.

Washington Nearsider on September 16, 2011 at 8:58 AM

So will Hillary make a Tuzla dash into the race?

itsnotaboutme on September 16, 2011 at 8:58 AM

Every nitwit who voted for His Highness can choke on their buyers’ remorse.

tru2tx on September 16, 2011 at 8:59 AM

She’d have the same approach. She would have asked for a stimulus, but it would have been half the size. It wouldn’t have worked either, but at least the debt would be smaller.

In addition, I think she wouldn’t have been quite the tool of the unions as BO has been. The Clintons are more cautious and politically savvy. The unions backed Obama because they knew if elected he would be more easily manipulated and he’d open the treasury to them.

The unions run the White House. That wouldn’t be true under Hillary. They’d have a place at the table (and influence), but Hillary wouldn’t let them control the agenda as Obama has.

mankai on September 16, 2011 at 9:00 AM

Hillary’s Bloodless Revolution http://bit.ly/9d1GqB

Who was Saul Alinsky? http://bit.ly/2BRYVA (Hillary’s college thesis is mentioned.)

Do Democrats forget what Hillary is all about? http://bit.ly/cU3xQP

Winghunter on September 16, 2011 at 9:00 AM

One thing she would have done better… she wouldn’t have chosen Biden as her running mate.

mankai on September 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Hillary has been a lousy Secretary of State.

Hilts on September 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM


… one-third are suffering a form of buyer’s remorse …

We tried to warn ‘em, but they wouldn’t listen, they were hypnotized like ancient sailors hearing a mermaid singing to them.

Tony737 on September 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM

She as big of an economic retard (Gardasil perhaps?) as Obama, so she would have excelled at making all the wrong decisions, just as he has done. But she would have been better on the foreign policy front. Oh, her decisions would still be suspect, but she wouldn’t have made gone out of her way to make us look bad. I don’t think she would have shipped Churchill’s bust back to the Brits, bowed to foreign leaders, offended Bibi, etc.

A Hillary Clinton presidency would have been a disaster, but it would have a different tone.

flyfisher on September 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM

A Hillary Clinton presidency would have been a disaster, but it would have a different tone. – Fly

Yeah, a more threatening tone.

“Speaker Boehner, Mrs. President would like to meet with you … at Fort Marcy Park.”

Tony737 on September 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM

In fact, while I’ve never been a proponent of vigilante justice, my favorite bumper sticker is “Run Hillary Run,” the twist being that you put it on your front bumper.

Best line from the article Winghunter linked to

VelvetElvis on September 16, 2011 at 9:08 AM

Did we ever get a ruling on the use of the word “peaking” to mean “at a new high” rather than “reaching its defined high?”

Red Cloud on September 16, 2011 at 9:08 AM

i don’t think things would have been too different with her in office

cmsinaz on September 16, 2011 at 9:08 AM

Are you jokers completely nuts? I didn’t put up with 4 years of SCOAMF just to get Her Thighness.

Lanceman on September 16, 2011 at 9:09 AM

Frankly, I’m not sure whether I think it would be better or the same.

Pretty much “the same” is my guess. Hillary is not the one we were waiting for either.

Though, if she had chosen Barry for Secretary of State… He would definitely be challenging Hillary and her bad record. Hope and change, part deux.

Fallon on September 16, 2011 at 9:09 AM

In fact, given that Hillary would have been more adept at working with Congress than Captain Kick-Ass, we may very well have wound up with the “public option” to boot while Democrats had 60 seats in the Senate.

She’s a competent progressive, much worse than the incompetent one we now have. I’d much rather have an incompetent enemy than a competent one.

rbj on September 16, 2011 at 9:10 AM

I don’t think Hillary would’ve been worse as President, but she’d hardly be any better. We’d still be stuck with government-run health care, there would’ve been a massive stimulus, hell she may have even gotten some income tax hikes through. So we’d still be up sh-t creek.

And people on the left need to stop fantasizing about Hillary riding to the rescue in 2012. She’s a member of the Obama administration. She ran on the same exact platform as Obama(Iraq excepted) in 2008. And she’d be facing the prospect of a very PO’d block of black voters who won’t turn out in nearly the kinds of numbers she’d need to win the general election.

For better or worse(and it’s worse), the Democrat Party is stuck with Obama through next November.

Doughboy on September 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM

i don’t think things would have been too different with her in office

cmsinaz on September 16, 2011 at 9:08 AM

Nonsense!

New York would be under water by now, and we wouldn’t be basking in post-racial bliss!!

VelvetElvis on September 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Why don’t any polls ask if the voters think that we’d have been better off with McCain? It would be interesting to know if Obama voters think that they’d have been happier with a Rep.

obladioblada on September 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM

According to the Wiki:

“Bill Clinton returned to the governor’s office two years later by winning the election of 1982. During her husband’s campaign, Rodham began to use the name Hillary Clinton, or sometimes “Mrs. Bill Clinton”, to assuage the concerns of Arkansas voters;[nb 4] she also took a leave of absence from Rose Law to campaign for him full-time.”

Apparently, before Bill, she was concerned with keeping her identity and remaining faithful to her career in politics. She has more experience than Barack, that’s for sure, but she is part of his administration. One has to wonder who Hillary would be today if it weren’t for Bill. I think she tends to use that a little to her advantage.

RDE2010 on September 16, 2011 at 9:14 AM

This morning on Moaning Joe, they spent a little time debating whether the old Clinton coalition–especially, Jews and working-class Catholics–was falling apart. They seemed to agree that there’s nothing to this and, besides, Obama is awesome and is the only mature adult as evidenced by his awesome jobs plan which is callously being opposed by that new Darth Vader figure, John Boehner.

Oh, and the NY and NV elections this week are aberrations, and they never heard of Solyndra.

BuckeyeSam on September 16, 2011 at 9:14 AM

The $hit eaters miss the $hit they used to eat.
Not surprising.
Bcs since they have no taste in the first place, they become connoisseurs of $hit and so only choose to dine on $hit.
So it’s no wonder they prefer one variation of $hit over another.
But to the rest of us with taste, $hit is $hit.
And it’s all just bad.

Badger40 on September 16, 2011 at 8:55 AM

I couldn’t have said that $hit any better.

darwin-t on September 16, 2011 at 9:14 AM

She can step into the void with promises to return America to the economic policies of her husband.

Um, don’t you mean the economic policies of the ‘Pub Congreff?

Tony737 on September 16, 2011 at 8:57 AM

Hillrod/Gingrich!

forest on September 16, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Obama looks like he’s going for Hillary’s throat in that picture.

zmdavid on September 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM

A Hillary Clinton presidency would have been a disaster, but it would have a different tone. – Fly

Yeah, a more threatening tone.

“Speaker Boehner, Mrs. President would like to meet with you … at Fort Marcy Park.”

Tony737 on September 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM

O is just better at keeping his body count off the front page.

flyfisher on September 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM

Can we get Jamie Gorelik back too? And the rest of the gang? Good times for those with bad memories.

hamnj7 on September 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM

Not unless Barry doesn’t run.

Greek Fire on September 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM

I think the country would have been far better off under President Dick Cheney, but he didn’t want the job.

Kevin71 on September 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM

VelvetElvis on September 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM

heh :)

cmsinaz on September 16, 2011 at 9:21 AM

I doubt she could’ve got Government healthcare passed, everything else would’ve been the same under this Alinsky-groupie though.

mudskipper on September 16, 2011 at 9:27 AM

“Speaker Boehner, Mrs. President would like to meet with you … at Fort Marcy Park.”

Tony737 on September 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM

Good one.

Here’s my take, circa 1993:

Homicide (to the tune of “Yesterday” by the Beatles)

Homicide.
They were there the day Vince Foster died.
Dropped him at Fort Marcy Park and lied –
They claimed it was a suicide.

Felonies –
Nussbaum wouldn’t let the Park Police
Take a look at Foster’s diaries.
He sent them off to Hillary’s.

I know there will be a disclosure — they can’t hide.
They will have to admit that it was a homicide.

Homicide.
All the White House staff is petrified,
But the ugly truth can’t be denied.
The people know it’s homicide.

I know there will be a disclosure — they can’t hide.
They will have to admit that it was a homicide.

Homicide.
All the White House staff is petrified,
But the ugly truth can’t be denied.
The people know it’s homicide.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on September 16, 2011 at 9:28 AM

Hillary would have a slightly different approach… it takes a village to destroy an economy.

mankai on September 16, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Like she’d have done any better.

Tony737 on September 16, 2011 at 8:55 AM

Hard not to.

Aronne on September 16, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Hillary has been a lousy Secretary of State.

Hilts on September 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Besides photo ops and empty glorification from the lap dogs in the press..

..what the he!! has Mrs. “reset” actually done as Secretary of State.

Our relationship with Pakistan is worse than ever and China has pretty much taken the “lead dog” role there….

……the Israeli/Palestine issue is worse than ever and is about to get a lot worse….

….she backed going to war without Congressional approval against an oil rich country that did not attack us and posed no imminent threat (Libya)..and is in position to be controlled by the Jihadist…..

…..She told the world Egypt’s government was “stable” just days before it fell apart…..

….she has stood by while the White House takes the successes we’ve seen in Afghanistan and throws them away by starting a withdrawal before the job is done…….

…….she backed putting a communist in control in Honduras…..

Iran is getting the bomb with little to know actions being taken by this administration to stop it……just a tiny threat you know….

We insult our No.1 ally Britain on a regular basis…..

The Russians have played us so well that they actually campaign for the Obama/Hillary duo to stay in power…

We’ve got the Dali Lama having to sneak in and out the back door of the White House with the trash while we kiss China’s butt in front of the world…

Hillary watched a 30 point lead on Obama evaporate in just under 2 months and then decided to fight back with delusional tales of dodging “sniper fire” to try and get her mojo back.

The “greatness” of Hillary is 100% illusion created by a bias press and supported by minions who appear to know nothing about her actual record.

Baxter Greene on September 16, 2011 at 9:38 AM

I think it would be much the same, but Hillary is savvy and Obama is not.

Hillary would have known better how to work things, and she would not have so embarrassed us on the International stage.

She probably would have had an easier time getting elected to 4 more years.
I’m actually glad Obama won…because of the serious damage it is doing to liberals and their causes.

bridgetown on September 16, 2011 at 9:40 AM

I HATE both of them.

docflash on September 16, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Just finished reading the “ingratitude” article and I have to say, Mr. President does seem to be beating a dead horse trying to please his base. I mean, what DO THEY WANT?

As for Hilary, I doubt she would have given Homeland Security of the Justice Department free reign like this administration has, and I REALLY doubt she’d be messing with our french fries.

scalleywag on September 16, 2011 at 9:43 AM

I suppose it would be wishful thinking to expect the left to learn the lesson that electing a president based on gender is probably not going to work out any better than electing one based on race. All the rest of us understand that Obama has done more to damage the future of black Americans than any white president cold possible have done precisely because he has reinforced the stereotype rather than erase it. Hillary would do the same thing to women.

MikeA on September 16, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Rush Limbaugh was ahead of his time. Again!

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/limbaugh-operation-chaos/2008/04/24/id/323517

patch on September 16, 2011 at 9:50 AM

Buyer’s remorse?

If you think about it, its no surprise, she still has more executive experience than he does.

Speakup on September 16, 2011 at 9:51 AM

She can’t run so stop worrying about the cackle coming back. If she had any intention of running she would have resigned by now. She also probably made some kind of deal to get the dough from the boy king back in ’08 to pay off her campaign debt, since I doubt her philandering husband has that much love for her.

Kissmygrits on September 16, 2011 at 9:52 AM

If you think about it, its no surprise, she still has more executive political experience than he does.

Speakup on September 16, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Her husband has way more executive experience but I don’t really think she has more… Just my opinion.

Fallon on September 16, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Hilary, many times, publicly, has said she supports Obama and his policies.

That will be brought up many times, if she were to run. She may have disagreed on policy when it came to her job, but she was a cheerleader for Obamacare, most foreign policy, regulations, unions etc…

She may have handled some foreign policies better, but for America? I’ve no doubt she’d have done exactly the same things that brought us here.

capejasmine on September 16, 2011 at 10:15 AM

Hillary Clinton ranks among the top three most squalidly corrupt and congenitally dishonest political personalities of our time. That “two-thirds of Americans hold a favorable view of her” is nothing less than despairing. Christopher Hitchens’s “No One Left to Lie To” should have finished her and her husband off for good –if truth and fact meant anything anymore. Or one could just read the congressional transcripts from the Travel Office scandal.

But otherwise this is a grand delusion.

rrpjr on September 16, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Not only would she have been better than Hussein, I think she would have been as good or better than McCain.

angryed on September 16, 2011 at 10:37 AM

People forget that most of those brought in to run the Obama administration are CLINTONITES.

bigmike on September 16, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Her husband has way more executive experience but I don’t really think she has more… Just my opinion.

Fallon on September 16, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Her husband ran where his pointer indicated.

She always was a lot more than first lady and remember that included Slick Willy’s gubernatorial experience (well flop it out experience).

Speakup on September 16, 2011 at 10:43 AM

A more likely scenario would be for Obama to move Hillary! to the number two spot and have Sheriff Joe do Secretary of State, hoping Hillary’s spot on the ticket would motivate the backsliders with the potential of a Hillary run in 2016 if Obama wins 2012. The only question would be whether or not Hillary! would take the bait? She’s gotta be wondering if working for him as SoS was a bad career move.

tpitman on September 16, 2011 at 10:59 AM

rrpjr on September 16, 2011 at 10:16 AM

This is what amazed me about her popularity in her first run…either voters were too young to be aware of the corruption and lies during the Clinton years, or they didn’t care because they wanted a woman to be president, or they had totally forgotten how corrupt they were. I’m glad she didn’t win and good riddance to her when her term is up.

scalleywag on September 16, 2011 at 11:09 AM

rrpjr on September 16, 2011 at 10:16 AM

This is what amazed me about her popularity in her first run…either voters were too young to be aware of the corruption and lies during the Clinton years, or they didn’t care because they wanted a woman to be president, or they had totally forgotten how corrupt they were. I’m glad she didn’t win and good riddance to her when her term is up.

scalleywag on September 16, 2011 at 11:09 AM

What amazes me is how anyone could think she was qualified in the first place. What were her qualifications to be a US Senator?

Del Dolemonte on September 16, 2011 at 11:30 AM

I really hope this is not going to be a daily theme at Hot Air. Op Chaos I got us Obama.

Connie on September 16, 2011 at 11:48 AM

keep the change on September 16, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Well, they can’t win the White House, and a lot of governorships, but there are a lot of legislative seats they could win without the black block. The racial gerrymandering creates a lot of safe seats for black politicians, the downside is that it also ghettoizes blacks politically.

As for the ingratitude, Victor Davis Hanson has a better take, the left can’t admit its agenda is unpopular, so Obama is the fall guy.

LarryD on September 16, 2011 at 2:22 PM