Clinton Effect on Election Results

[dazzleman]

In looking at the election results, I can't help but think that Al Gore may have been right in declining President Clinton's campaign help in 2000.

I have not done a full study, but it seems that more often than not, the candidate for whom Clinton campaigns loses.

In the 2002 Florida governor's race, Bush and McBride were running neck and neck until Clinton went to Florida to campaign for McBride - at which point, McBride sunk like a stone and Bush won re-election handily.

Clinton also campaigned for Bill Curry for governor of Connecticut - a Democratic state that went for Clinton twice - and Curry lost handily to John Rowland.

This time, from what I saw, Clinton campaigned in Florida for Kerry, as well as western states like Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.  Bush carried all of them.

It has been acknowledged that Clinton is best for firing up the Democratic base.  But it seems that he also fires up the Republican base, and gets them out to vote against the person that he is pushing.  Would this have been true in 2000 before he left office, or was it the manner in which he left office (purchased pardons, stolen furniture, White House vandalism, etc.) that brought this about?  Or is Bill Clinton still an asset if used properly?

And more pertinent for 2008, what about Hillary?  I didn't notice her doing too much campaigning for John Kerry (big surprise) but she did campaign for Kerry in Florida.  She also campaigned for Diane Farrell, the Democratic candidate running against Christopher Shays, a moderate incumbent Republican, for the CT 4th district Congressional seat.  Though this district was won narrowly by John Kerry, Farrell lost.  What was the overall success rate of the candidates for whom she campaigned?

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the Clinton effect, either Bill or Hillary?

[Nym90]

In looking at the election results, I can't help but think that Al Gore may have been right in declining President Clinton's campaign help in 2000.

I have not done a full study, but it seems that more often than not, the candidate for whom Clinton campaigns loses.

In the 2002 Florida governor's race, Bush and McBride were running neck and neck until Clinton went to Florida to campaign for McBride - at which point, McBride sunk like a stone and Bush won re-election handily.

Clinton also campaigned for Bill Curry for governor of Connecticut - a Democratic state that went for Clinton twice - and Curry lost handily to John Rowland.

This time, from what I saw, Clinton campaigned in Florida for Kerry, as well as western states like Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.  Bush carried all of them.

It has been acknowledged that Clinton is best for firing up the Democratic base.  But it seems that he also fires up the Republican base, and gets them out to vote against the person that he is pushing.  Would this have been true in 2000 before he left office, or was it the manner in which he left office (purchased pardons, stolen furniture, White House vandalism, etc.) that brought this about?  Or is Bill Clinton still an asset if used properly?

And more pertinent for 2008, what about Hillary?  I didn't notice her doing too much campaigning for John Kerry (big surprise) but she did campaign for Kerry in Florida.  She also campaigned for Diane Farrell, the Democratic candidate running against Christopher Shays, a moderate incumbent Republican, for the CT 4th district Congressional seat.  Though this district was won narrowly by John Kerry, Farrell lost.  What was the overall success rate of the candidates for whom she campaigned?

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the Clinton effect, either Bill or Hillary?

Obviously there are many other potential causes for these candidates losing; correlation is not the same as causation. It's interesting to note, but certainly doesn't prove anything.

Clinton had high approval ratings upon leaving office, and if anything is viewed more favorably now, after leaving office, then he was at the time of his departure. He does fire up both bases, but I fail to see how he would be a liability with swing voters.

At the same time, people don't often base their vote on endorsements, which are, generally speaking, one of the most overrated things in politics. So while Clinton doesn't hurt with swing voters at all, he likely doesn't help much either. He can convince a few people, but it's not going to have a dramatic effect.

The statements of the candidates themselves, as well as outside events, will have a much greater impact, and thus it is difficult to determine whether Clinton helped or not, or how much.

[ATFFL]

Clinton also suffers from what all former Presidents do, the less political he is the more popular he is.  WHen he gets involved in the campaign and does high profile activities he is viewed as more partisan and less Presidential. 

Speaking at the convention is OK.  THe active campaigning he did at the end hurts how people percieve him.

[dazzleman]

Clinton also suffers from what all former Presidents do, the less political he is the more popular he is.  WHen he gets involved in the campaign and does high profile activities he is viewed as more partisan and less Presidential. 

Speaking at the convention is OK.  THe active campaigning he did at the end hurts how people percieve him.

That's an interesting angle, and I think you're right.  The public expects former presidents to be statemen and not get too involved in partisan politics.  As you said, speaking at the convention is fine, but active campaigning beyond a certain point doesn't seem to meet with a great reception.  I'm not sure how other former presidents have handled this, but I do remember that Gerald Ford campaigned vociferously against Jimmy Carter in 1980 (settling a score, I guess).

My sense is that Clinton's reputation is somewhat tarnished since he left office, by those disgraceful pardons as well as the Sept. 11th attacks, and that he's really only helpful in rousing the Democratic base, as opposed to swaying swing voters.  I also wonder whether he actually motivates people to vote against those he endorses, based on the results in some races.

[Engineer]

I listened to Bill Clinton's speach in Philadelphia.  He had a large excited crowd.  However, it seem as though the crowd came to hear Bill Clinton and not John Kerry.  And Clinton's speech seemed more about his past glories than a ringing endorsement of Kerry.

Clinton would have fired up the base (and the vote) if he were running.  The problem is that he couldn't fire up the base into voting for Kerry.  Remember, the majority of Kerry voters weren't voting for him, but against Bush.

I think that the Clinton's did just enough to say that they tired, but not enough to get Kerry elected.  Remember the missus still has dreams of returning to the White House.

[cabville]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One factor often overlooked when considering Clinton's effect was his personal approval rating.  While his job approval rating remained very high at the end, his personal approval ratings fell into the  low '30's.  Meaning that people approved of the job he was doing but didn't really like him that much.  The scandals took their toll .  This presents the very real possibility that is a liability with swing voters. 

It is also often forgotten that Bill Clinton was responsible largely for the Republican sweep during the 1994 midterms.  Republican candidates were literally running ads connecting their opponents with Bill Clinton.  Granted this was an earlier time when Clinton's approval ratings were quite low.  In the high '30's to mid '40's range.  But it is hard to find evidence where Clinton appears to have helped in any significant fashion.  As a campaigner, he appears to be a net negative when trying to assist other Democrats.

[dazzleman]

Last night, I watched a show on MSNBC that had a panel of people talking about the election.

One of the panelits was Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and author of a campaign documentary.

Overall, she made a very bad impression on me.  She was coarse, vulgar and condescending, saying that most Americans are fat and lazy, have horrible jobs, and watch TV only to be sedated.  She also said that Rudy Giuliani was the president's "butt boy."  All in all, she was the personification of what keeps "red state" voters pulling the Republican lever.

But she did say one thing that made sense.  Talking about Bill Clinton, she said that he's overrated as a campaigner, that the Democrats "are still paying for his blowjob" and that he ought to stay home because he brought out more anti-Kerry voters than supporters for Kerry.

On that, if little else, I think she was right.