When Hillary Clinton’s Democratic skeptics list their biggest electoral concerns, near the top is the belief that she would undermine Democratic candidates’ chances down-ballot. It’s a pretty straightforward idea: Clinton is a “polarizing” Dem who generates strong negative feelings in most “red” states. If Clinton is at the top of the ballot, and Republicans are motivated to come to the polls to vote against her, Democratic congressional candidates, who won’t want to campaign alongside the New York senator, will be at a distinct disadvantage.
We’ve all heard the argument, but the evidence to support it is surprisingly thin. The NYT sets the stage today.
Mrs. Clinton is a long way from winning the Democratic presidential nomination, and over the last few weeks has struggled to hang on to the air of inevitability that she has been cultivating all year. But the possibility that she will be the nominee is already generating concern among some Democrats in Republican-leaning states and Congressional districts, who fear that sharing the ticket with her could subject them to attack as too liberal and out of step with the values of their constituents.
As evidence, the Times highlights Rep. Nancy Boyda, a freshman Dem from Kansas, who narrowly won an upset last year, appealing to conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans. Would a Clinton nomination hurt Boyda’s chances? The NYT quotes Republicans to bolster the thesis.
…Republicans in Kansas say Mrs. Clinton’s presence on the ticket would unite their party in opposition to her and give dispirited conservatives a reason to get excited about the race.
Wait, the evidence that Clinton would be a drag on Democratic candidates down-ballot comes from the others side of the aisle? According to the NYT, yes.
…Patrick Leopold, campaign manager for [Republican challenger Lynn] Jenkins, said a Clinton nomination would work in favor of either his candidate or Mr. Ryun, the other prospective Republican opponent of Ms. Boyda. “Whether you are a moderate Republican or a conservative Republican in Kansas, you are pretty much of the same mind on Hillary Clinton,” Mr. Leopold said. “There is no question Hillary is going to be a drag for Boyda.”
The mere mention of Mrs. Clinton’s name as a potential president dew a strong reaction from Tom Doperalski, an official in rural Pottawatomie County who had just finished meeting with Ms. Boyda about how to contend with growth issues arising out of the increase of troops stationed at nearby Fort Riley.
“The people I talk to, they just cannot imagine a worse scenario,” said Mr. Doperalski, a Republican who heads the county commission. “They just don’t think she can be trusted.”
I’m willing to be convinced that Clinton might undermine Dems’ down-ballot chances, but this won’t cut it. The article quotes exactly zero Dems expressing any on-the-record concerns at all, and citing rhetoric from Kansas Republicans isn’t exactly persuasive.
As for Boyda, she told the NYT, “It is something I have no control over, quite honestly. They will demonize any Democrat who becomes the nominee. I just put my head down and work.”
She’s quite right, the GOP will relentlessly smear any Dem who gets the nomination; it’s what the right does better than anything else. For me, that’s not necessarily the end of the discussion — the next question is whether those attempts to demonize would be more effective against some candidates than others — but it’s a reminder that this anti-Clinton talking point still needs quite a bit of work.
The polls don’t support the argument; the endorsements from congressional Dems don’t support the argument; and quotes from Republicans in Kansas don’t support the argument. If there’s proof, I’m all ears, but this NYT article is pretty weak.