Shorter David Broder: no matter what happens, it always benefits the Republicans. And Hillary Clinton is the biggest benefit of all.
Broder is correct that a Hillary campaign will hurt Democrats in places like Georgia, Texas, and Kansas, but anyone that is paying any attention to the House and Senate races will tell you that all the metrics indicate a massive win for the Dems in 2008. I’ve written extensively about this. But Broder doesn’t mention one word about retirements, scandal, recruitment, or fundraising. No. He just tells us the Republicans are sitting pretty. He’s the worst kind of hack.
This might just be me focusing on my own little bete noir, but what really gets me about the Broder column is that he parrots two “facts” that have become part of the Washington narrative about the presidential race, both of which are basically wrong:
(1) Hillary Clinton has surged ahead. Not true. She is doing well, but the Washington Post poll showing her as having support from 51 percent of Democrats is statistically an outlier, and not just by a little bit (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/abcpost_poll_surge_or_outlier.php).
(2) Congressional approval is low because Democrats are spending too much time being partisan, and not enough time passing nonpartisan legislation. Not true. Congressional approval is near all-time lows, because democrats are pissed off that the democratic congress hasn’t done enough to stop the war. If they want to get their approval up, they should be more partisan, not less.
What bugs me about these misstatements is that you would think that someone like Broder, who is supposed to be a journalist, would care about what the actual facts are. Maybe I have a different attitude because I’m a scientist, but I would think that someone who devoted his life to observing the political scene would be curious about what is actually going on rather than just blurting out conventional wisdom that is blatantly not true. Instead, Broder appears to be just like many an old fogey who is set in his ways with their own theory about how the world works that makes them impervious to any actual data. That’s his prerogative if he wants to just sit in a bar and grouse about politics, but if he wants to play the political analyst he should be required to do some analysis.
Kos put more energy into his take down.
The thing is, rae, that Broder does know better. It’s not laziness. It’s deliberate that he continues to do these columns that always favor the Republicans.
Broder’s irrelevance and metrics besides, I still don’t have a good feeling with what a Clinton candidacy will do in places like Missouri. Before the narrative was set by the talking heads and professional pontificators, I had ample anectodal evidence of what the turnout amongst the rightwing base would be with Hillary Clinton as the nominee. Perhaps this area is too red and I’m not getting an accurate read of Missouri as a whole, but with Edwards or Obama, I hear the dittoheads crack jokes (funny name, haircut, etc.), but generally see their apathy. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, sends them into a frenzy. Does the environment so favor Dems next year that it will overcome this anti-Hillary vote?