Today’s Quinnipiac poll carried with it some bleak news for Secretary of State (and “inevitable” future president) Hillary Clinton. The poll (of 1125 nationwide voters) reported the following presidential candidate favorability ratings:
- Marco Rubio: +14
- Bernie Sanders: +9
- Ted Cruz: -6
- Hillary Clinton: -17
- Donald Trump: -25
Far from being an outlier, these numbers are in close agreement with the most recent Economist poll of two thousand voters. In fact, the Quinnipiac poll conveys even worse news for the dwindling ranks of Clinton supporters. It seems the inevitable future president is now significantly trailing the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination:
- Clinton (41), Rubio (48)
- Sanders (43), Rubio (43)
Again, these numbers are not outliers. Interestingly, such repeated empirical observations seem to have no effect on the pundit class, who despite all evidence cling to their assumption regarding Clinton’s obvious electability.
For instance, in last night's debate Sanders was forced to defend himself against the charge that he’s a modern-day George McGovern. Now, obviously the political moment of 2016 has little in common with 1972 (you would probably have to go back to the 1890s to find a precedent for today’s enormously inequality and overt political corruption). But, more importantly, while Sanders is asked to distance himself from left-leaning candidates of the past, Secretary Clinton never seems to be asked to distinguish herself from the several uninspiring "moderate" losers that have proceeded her to her party’s nomination (e.g. Al Gore, John Kerry, Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey).
To aid our confused pundit class, let me offer the following basic observation: Democratic presidential candidates have succeeded in modern history only when they were very well-liked (i.e. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter; for instance, Obama’s favorability was routinely polling over +20 throughout the 2008 Democratic primary).
Of course, this is so obvious it shouldn’t have to be said, but as our pundit class apparently needs to be reminded: candidates win elections when they are liked by voters.
We are repeatedly told that a candidate just cannot be elected if they are left-of-center, progressive — or even worse, a “democratic socialist.” Well, frankly I don’t know about that, but it would be interesting to put the hypothesis to the test. What I am certain about is simpler: a candidate will not win the presidency if voters do not like them.
And, once again, two consecutive polls have reported 56% of the electorate disliking Clinton.
It would thus appear that, however unlikely it might seem, a 74-year old democratic socialist from Vermont is the only major obstacle remaining to the political ambitions of Marco Rubio. And should those ambitions be fulfilled, you can bet President Rubio would waste no time working with a Republican Congress to eviscerate whatever remains of the meager accomplishments of American liberalism.
Thus, take your pick: (lukewarm democratic) socialism… or barbarism.