How Concerned Should Hillaryland Be About Barack Obama's Political Standing In 2016?

Though Clinton's soaring approval ratings seemingly did little to help Gore in 2000, and McCain's popular vote percentage far exceeded the number who approved of the job Dubya was doing, the elder Bush's electoral performance in 1988 closely mirrored public approval of his boss, Ronald Reagan. Photo taken July 1988, courtesy of the Reagan Library.

President Barack Obama's job approval rating currently sits at about 45/50% per the Real Clear Politics aggregator, 44/50% according to Huffington Posts's Pollster, or 46/49% per TPM Polltracker.

All in all, these are some pretty rough numbers for the President, especially considering where he stood for most of the 2012 election year, and represents one of his worst periods in terms of job approval since the Fall of  2010 and 2011.

Fortunately for Obama, he'll never have to stand before voters for re-election again. Unfortunately for Democrats, they'll endure the burden of running for office with the anchor of an unpopular Presidency around their neck, assuming Obama's ratings hold at current levels or get worse.

In fact, recent history would suggest that 2014 Senate and House contenders should fear the President's popularity the most. In 2010, Obama sported an abysmal 44/55% job approval rating, and Republicans won in a landslide. Something similar happened in 2006, when George W. Bush had a 43/57% approval rating, and the Democrats won in a landslide. In 2002, a hugely popular post-9/11 George Bush was able to flout tradition when his party won an impressive popular vote victory and picked up several seats.

But what if we look further down the road? Can the way voters feel about President Obama on election night 2016 affect the vote count for Hillary Clinton? Or Joe Biden? Or Howard Dean? Or any number of possible 2016 Democratic nominees? Intuition and common-sense suggests yes, and at least one poll-analyst seems to agree. But historical evidence provides room for doubt.

The series of tables below detail outgoing Presidential job approval ratings in the final month(s) of the presidential campaigns to replace them. And as you can see, especially with regards to the 2008, 2000, and 1960 presidential elections, the term-limited President's ratings didn't appear to make or break his party's nominee:

PART III: The "Race" Factor: Have African Americans Forgiven the Clintons for 2008?

Clinton greets supporter and BET founder Robert L. Johnson at a campaign stop in Jan. 2008. Photo courtesy of Todd Heisler/The New York Times.

As discussed in parts I and II of this 3 part series, Hillary Clinton would be a uniquely strong Democratic Presidential Primary candidate should she decide to enter the race in 2016, though with three distinct areas of potential weakness, based on her 2008 performance against President Obama.

She runs the risk of falling behind among voters concerned with electing a candidate who can best bring about change, with the only variable being how many 2016 primary voters will choose this quality as the most desirable trait. 51% selected "change" in 2008, far more than the second most identified trait, "experience," at 23%.

Clinton also risks doing poorly among young voters aged 18-29. This age group chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008 by 26 points, and although she won voters over 30 years old by four points, (86% of the total electorate), she still lost the nomination.

But of all the attributes and demographics measured by the 2008 primary exit pollsters, none would seem to bode so poorly for Hillary Clinton in 2016 as her performance among African American Democratic Primary voters.

By the time the campaign ended in June 2008, Hillary had averaged a measly 15% of the African American vote, to Barack Obama's 76%. The margin was large enough to deny Clinton the nomination, despite carrying white Democratic primary voters 55-39%, Hispanics 62-35%, and "other" 57-41%.

Data is compiled from CNN's state-by-state primary exit polling. The complete data behind the national primary numbers can be found here.

Sure, a part of Hillary's weakness with black voters in 2008 was due to the presence of a young, charismatic African American on the Democratic ballot. But if you recall, the Clintons did a fair amount of racial flame-throwing in their quest to shake-off the popular Senator, upsetting many former black allies and supporters. So the question is whether or not African Americans have forgiven the Clintons for the perceived racial undertones of their attacks on Obama, and if so, whether they've redeemed themselves to the point of receiving their vote.

If early primary polling is any indication, the answer to the question is yes, blacks seem willing to vote for Hillary Clinton again:

Only surveys including racial breakdowns were included in the table.

PART II: The "Age" Factor - Approaching 70 isn't a great place to be for someone with an old "youth vote" deficit

A variety of young or new faces seem capable of exploiting Hillary's 2008 weakness with young Democratic primary voters. From left, TX Rep. Joaquin Castro, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, San Antonio Julian Castro, and newly-elected Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Though Hillary Clinton caught a bit of bad press recently regarding her national favorability rating, her continued strength as a Democratic primary contender remains unfazed by the factors that caused her popularity to take a slight dip last month, at least according to public polling on the matter.

The most recent survey on the race shows Clinton leading all of her likely Democratic opponents AND undecideds by a miraculous 63-37%, besting her closest competitor Joe Biden by 50 points!

It may all sound a bit like deja vu, until you realize that Hillary is out-distancing her potential 2016 competitors by a far greater margin than she ever did in 2008. Her 2016 polling averages are strong among the groups she's been historically strong with (whites, Hispanics, and women), as well as the groups she performed poorly with in 2008 (blacks, men, 'very liberal' voters).

But there was another group, besides the "change voters" discussed in Part I of this series, that were particularly down on Hillary during her battle with Barack Obama: 18-29 year olds. And if 2008 is any guide, Hillary will want to do some serious advance work on nailing down the youth vote, strong early polling aside.

Despite recent chatter in some conservative circles proposing preemptive attacks on Hillary Clinton's age in preparation for 2016, advanced age in and of itself is certainly no bar to a party's nomination (for recent examples, see Bob Dole and John McCain), nor even the the presidency (see Ronald Reagan).

But when you couple that advanced age with a historical weakness among young voters, you can see why Hillary may need to be creative with ways to reach out to this increasingly influential Democratic voting block.

What do I mean by Hillary Clinton's "weakness with young voters"? I mean that she lost 18-29 year-olds in 2008 to Barack Obama by a significant 60-34%. I also mean that she won 18-29 year olds in just 5 of 40 contests where exit polling was conducted (Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and West Virginia). Moreover, as the chart below indicates, she lost the next youngest age group, 30-44 year olds, to Obama by a hefty 13 points (54-41%).

Exit Poll Data compiled from CNN. National figures were compiled from state-by-state exit polling, the results of which can be found here.

 
It isn't until the 45-59 age group that Hillary even reaches parity with Obama, tying him 47-47%. Her only significant advantage among any age group came with Democratic primary voters aged 60 and older (Obama only won this age group in 6 of 40 exit-polled contested (Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia)

Which of Hillary's 2008 weaknesses are most likely to reemerge in 2016? Part I: The "CHANGE" Factor

"Change" candidates aren't always successful at seeking their party's nomination, but that was not the case in 2008. If Clinton wasn't the change candidate then, how can she be in 2016? Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Richard Drew/Pool

In 2008, the Clinton juggernaut collapsed before a comparatively unknown, three-year Senator from Illinios, in part because the big-wigs in Hillaryland failed to anticipate the degree to which members of their own party wanted a candidate who represented that exhausted political buzzword: "change."

It's not that Mark Penn, Patti Solis Doyle, Howard Wolfson, and other 2008 Clinton campaign verterans were idiots - they knew something about how to run a political campaign, and were certainly well aware that after 2.5 years of a historically unpopular President George W. Bush, Americans at the national level would be craving change. But what were the odds that Democrats would turn those same desires against their own darling Clinton? After all, it was the Clinton family that ushered the Democrats out of the political wilderness of the 1980s. It was the Clintons who became the first Democrats to win two presidential terms since FDR. It was the Clintons that presided over the greatest peacetime economic expansion in history.

Yet still, in the Winter and Spring of 2008, Democrats simply weren't buying what the Clintons were selling anymore; this wasn't an "experience" election, and Hillary was NOT the candidate of change.

Whether through miscalculation on her campaign's part, or simply her opponent's own strength, Clinton performed very, very poorly among voters in her party who said they wanted a candidate that could best "bring about change," which, unfortunately for Hillary, wound up being the majority of the Democratic electorate that year.

Flash forward five years, and Hillary Clinton again leads the primary, though this time sweeping nearly every subset of every subgroup of potential Democratic primary voters. Which begs the question: is 2016 the next 2008? Will the next Democratic Presidential primary, or even the next general election, feature a "change" component to the extent seen in 2008? It's hard to say, and there are some obvious differences.

In 2016, it will be Hillary's party that has dominated the White House for 8 years, which could end up a net negative OR positive for her campaign, depending on how Americans continue to perceive the job President Barack Obama is doing (which, as of today, isn't too well).

Yet if the national mood is such that a party of Obama-Democrats jump on the "change" bandwagon once more, Hillary Clinton has a major soft spot for opponents to target, especially if 2008 is any guide.

To understand the extend of Hillary's potential weakness with this group of voters, consider the chart below that documents the make-up of the 2008 Democratic primary electorate based on what voters identified as the "top candidate quality" to exit pollsters, as well as how proponents of each candidate quality split their vote between Clinton and Obama:

Data is compiled from CNN's state-by-state exit polling. I compiled the national data from CNN state exit polling. That process can be found here.

The difference in Obama and Clinton's vote margins among people who identified the ability to "bring about change" as the most important candidate quality, and those who did not, is stark. Obama carried the "change" voters by a landslide 41 points (68-27%), while Hillary carried the rest (voters who said experience, electability, or empathy for others was the most important candidate quality) by an identical 41 points, or 63-22%.

Kentucky DEMs catch a break with Ashley Judd out, but is McConnell as vulnerable as it seems?

Minority Leader McConnell (left) and a strong potential Senate opponent, Sec. of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (right). The Grimes photo is from a 2011 campaign ad & is  courtesy of the Grimes campaign. The McConnell photo is courtesy of Alex Wong/Getty Images.

Democrats made clear early on that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would be on their very small list of top pick-up opportunities in the 2014 midterm elections.  Since then, much of the media focus in terms of McConnell's likely opponent centered on Hollywood actress Ashley Judd, a Democratic activist who grew up in the Bluegrass State with her famous country-duo Mom and Sister, Wynonna and Naomi Judd.

But Democrats caught a break two weeks ago when Judd announced, after a rough exploratory phase, she would not be challenging McConnell.

Though she started out somewhat competitive in polling (she trailed Junior Kentucky Senator Rand Paul 47-46% and McConnell 47-43% in a December PPP poll, and trailed 49-40% in a February Harper Polling survey), a brutal media barrage took its toll on Judd's image. First, there was the fact that though she would be seeking a Senate seat in Kentucky, she actually lives in Tennessee, and has for the last several years. Then came her bizarre affinity for comparing everything to rape - at first it was coal mining, then this bomb dropped: "I've been raped twice, so I think I can handle Mitch McConnell."  Just a day after the story surrounding the latest rape comment surfaced, Judd announced she wouldn't challenge McConnell.

And if the latest Public Policy Polling survey is to be believed, it was a wise decision on Judd's part. Her favorability rating with Kentucky voters dropped 13 points in just 4 months, from +6 in December, to -7 (34/41%) in April. When matched in a hypothetical 2016 Senate race with Rand Paul, she now trails 51-40%.

While it's questionable whether Judd would have been successful in a Democratic Primary, the McConnell campaign almost certainly would rather have faced her than their new potential opponent, KY Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes.

Grimes is a youthful (just 35 years old!), attractive, and most importantly, Kentucky native up-and-comer who was catapulted into her current (and first) elected position in a 2011 special election...yet she trails the Senate Minority Leader just 45-41%.

So where does her impressive performance against McConnell stem from in the internals? In terms of partisan identification, not so much from Independents. They're backing the 5-term incumbent by a slight plurality, 41-39%. And while she attracts 61% from her own party, she's not terribly appealing to Republicans, getting just 16% of their support.

Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell is actually quite strong among Kentucky Democrats, attracting 24% of their vote, the same amount he won in his last reelection bid (for comparison, Rand Paul won 16% of Democrats in his 2010 Senate race against Jack Conway). He's also considerably stronger among his base, picking up 74% of Republicans.

If McConnell is winning Republicans by more than his opponent is winning Democrats, and if he's attracting more crossover support from Democrats than Grimes from Republicans, and if he's leading slightly among Independents, how is this just a 4 point race? It most definitely has something to do with the fact that PPP finds 51% of respondents identifying as Democrats, but just 39% identifying as Republicans, a D+12 partisan advantage. Kentucky voters  may indeed be identifying as such today, but the chart below indicates it would be a Kentucky election first if D+12 holds until November 2014, especially for a non-presidential election year contest:

No Exit polling was conducted in Kentucky in 2012, 2011, and 2007.

As you can see, in every Kentucky election over the last 10 years in which exit polling was conducted, Democrats have outnumbered Republicans a maximum of 9% (and that was in the near-landslide Democratic presidential year of 2008). The Republican's strongest performance in partisan identification came just 2.5 years ago, during the Tea Party take-over of Congress.

North Carolina: Net Change in Obama's margin against GOP, 2008-2012, county-by-county

Net change of 0 - 2% = light pink               Net Change of 0 - 2% = very light blue
                   2.01 - 4% = pink                                          2.01 - 4% = light blue
                   4.01 - 6% = red                                            4.01 - 6% = blue
                   6.01 - 8% = dark red                                    6.01 - 8% = dark blue
                   8.01% + = very dark red                              8.01% + = very dark blue

Above is a county-by-county map of North Carolina, shaded to represent where President Obama experienced his largest net percentage margin gain & losses against his Republican contender from 2008 to 2012. The red counties are the counties where Obama did worse against Romney than he did against McCain. Likewise, the blue counties are the counties where Obama performed STRONGER against Romney than he did against McCain. The lighter the shade of red or blue, the slighter the difference in the net margins between Obama & his opponent from '08 to '12. The darker shades of red or blue represent where Obama/GOP saw their largest gains from 2008 to 2012.

2012 Youth Vote: Anomaly or permanent Democratic voting bloc?

P

In 2008, election watchers were surprised when voters under age 30 turned out in record breaking numbers to support Barack Obama's first presidential bid (by record breaking margins, as well). But they were down right aghast when Team Obama, despite an abundance of polling data indicating youth enthusiasm was down, managed to increase turnout amongst this historically unreliable voting block. But is this voting block on a consistent rise in the same way white voters have been on a consistent decline? Are 18-29-year-olds a permanent constituency of the Democrats, or does history suggest there's a path for GOP inroads?

18-29 yr-old voting patters, 1976-2012

A look at 2012 Demographics

Myself and others speculated that if the GOP won white voters by about 20 points or more, that would offset any gains for Democrats from white turnout being held at 2008 levels (when they made up 74% of the electorate). And indeed, Romney performed much better among white voters than John McCain four years earlier, winning the largest voting block 59-39%. McCain only carried the group by 12%.

But what many did not count on (myself included) was a full 2% drop in the number of white voters in the electorate. That, coupled with 2008-like African American turnout, increased Latino turnout, and a stronger Obama margin with Latinos led to Romney's demise.