But some say that [would not vote] number is a function of name recognition.

I'm not sure how this makes any sense. Hillary has higher name recognition than those guys, and if low recognition increases that number, the real nobodies ought to be higher.

"If someone has an argument for why, at the end of that political war, they'll be less polarizng than Clinton, than that's a fair comparison. But the current numbers are not."

Ezra's assuming her unfavorables can't go even lower.

If Kerry's unfavorables went from 20% to (let's say) 40%, why can't her's go from 40% to ...?

I thought Hillary's unfavorable ratings had been slowly dropping?

A point against Ezra: who says this is the end point of the smears of Hillary?

A point against Leo: there's got to be a cap *somewhere*, a ceiling above which Hillary's negatives with the right (and right-leaning moderates, aka, people who won't self-identify as GOP but may vote like that) cannot rise.

On the other (third?) hand, it's entirely possible that Hillary can tank with the left as well and put a ceiling on her *positives* from both sides (as the Pelosi/Reid Democratic Congress is). The trick would be to pull a Truman and use that disdain from each side as proof that one's not *that* extreme in either direction; that's the playbook for her, if she wants to use it.

It's hard to see how they could really drive Hillary's unfavorables up that much. What are they going to say about her that hasn't already been said?

Hillary presents the right with a real bind. Their SOP, to feminize the opposition, is paradoxically a nonstarter with Hillary. The "Democrat = soft on bad guys" frame cuts against the factors that tend to drive Hillary's negatives up (e.g., that she's a ruthless power-hungry dyke-bot).

I don't believe the results of the "definitely would not vote for" question.

Fundamentally people don't vote for or against anyone in the general election. They vote between two options.

In 2008 people will be asked to choose between two starkly different views of foreign policy, the war on terror, the economy, civil rights, and social policy.

I just don't believe most people are going to vote for or against a candidate because they find her grating.

Ezra, you're behind the curve here...

Yes, anybody who has to go through the right wing slime machine will end up with negatives like Hillary. There's no doubt about that.

The real question is how much conservatives and evangelicals would be motivated to come out to vote against Hillary.

Edwards vs. Romney, the Religious Right might stay home. Obama vs. Rudy, would definitely take the fire out of their GOTV drives.

But with Hillary on the ticket, I can see right wingers wading through fire to get to the polls. Even if they have to vote for Mitt.

The only plus would be if it's Hillary vs. Rudy... and that would be in watching conservatives spontaneously combust as they pulled the lever.

In 2008 people will be asked to choose between two starkly different views of foreign policy, the war on terror, the economy, civil rights, and social policy.

Only if Hillary is beaten in the Democratic primary.

In 2008 people will be asked to choose between two starkly different views of foreign policy, the war on terror, the economy, civil rights, and social policy.

Not if their choices are between Clinton and a Republican, they won't.

And Ezra Klein is overlooking a pretty obvious factor here. It's not just that people don't like Hillary Clinton, it's that those who don't like her absolutely can't stand her. So far the GOP field has been faced with a marked lack of enthusiasm, but once Clinton is nominated the Republican nominee becomes the only alternative to a Hillary Clinton presidency. If you don't think that'll be a massive fundraising and votedriving boon for the right, then you've been living in a cave for the last fifteen years.

Edwards, on the other hand, however much he may get slimed in a general election, has not been a conservative bete noire for the last decade and a half. He polls well with moderates, he comes across as a moderate despite his very progressive politics, and he can deliver a great speech. All of that means he's starting off at an advantage. Clinton, on the other hand, is starting off at a massive disadvantage, and is the most conservative major Democratic candidate to boot. This is a fantastically easy call to make.

Not if their choices are between Clinton and a Republican, they won't.

I know this is common opinion among core Democrats. But it's not common opinion among the public at large.

Yes Hillary is more hawkish than the other Democrats in the field. But she's no where near as hawkish as the Republicans, who gain applause for comments like "bomb, bomb Iran", "World War IV", and "double Guantanamo".

She's not going to be hostile to the U.N. or our allies, she'd undoubtedly be more progressive on environmental and social issues, she isn't going to nominate three more Scalia-clones and she isn't even close in terms of economic or health care policy.

"and she isn't even close in terms of economic or health care policy."

What in God's name are you talking about? She stole Mitt Romney's coercive plan for forced participation in the capitalist heathcare market.

Forced, by law. Not by choice because you feel you need to.

The notion that a Clinton candidacy would stimulate a massive Republican turnout appears reasonable, but as yet there isn’t much evidence that it’s true. Historically it hasn’t happed in either Hilary’s two senate races or in Bill’s presidential elections (or for that matter in most of Bill’s Arkansas elections). So far I’ve only seen one poll that has actually asked the question “Do you feel strongly enough about Hilary Clinton that you would not vote for her regardless of who the Republican candidate was?” That was the July Decision Maker Poll produced by North Carolina’s Civitas Institute. Fifty-two (52) percent said yes, forty-one (41) percent said no. This doesn’t strike me as evidence of an overwhelming anti-Clinton tsunami. Granted the Civitas sample is older and perhaps more Democratic than North Carolina’s population as a whole, but can anyone find any other poll that has actually measures this?

I have been making the same point. Senator Clinton is no more polarizing than any other candidate who has been under intense scrutiny. By election day Al Gore and John Kerry both had unfavorables in the high forties. That's what attacks from the Right Wing Noise Machine will do to any candidate.

When Barack Obama says he is not at polarizing as Senator Clinton it just means he had not been subjected to any intense scrutiny or attack ads.

Any Democratic nominee will be targeted by the Right Wing Noise Machine and by election day will have high unfavorables.

I think that Ezra has it exactly right, and if you think that Hillary is "polarizing", then you'd better think again. The only truly "polarizing" figure I know in American politics today is GWB because he manages to "polarize" even people who are very close to the center of American politics. Hillary is "polarizing" only insofar as the "pole" inhabitants a.k.a the wingnuts (left and right) have always had this strong reaction to her. But guess what? Those people were already "polarized", anyway, because they live in the "poles" of American politics! Not only are they against Hillary, they are also against each other! People in the center (which means most "normal" people) do not have the visceral reaction to HRC that the wingnuts do, which explain her success so far in the polls. Hillary is "polarizing" only because for the past 15 years she has been pursued and demonized by the left and right "poles" inhabitants, which has driven up her negatives. She is now a well known quantity so that most people who have a negative opinion of her have probably already been counted (statistically speaking), meaning that, as Ezra has posited, her so-called 'negatives' are now as high as they'll get.