by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
Via DeLong and Franke-Ruta (that's just the order their posts popped up in my RSS reader), the NYT's Judith Warner wonders if maybe, just maybe, the hyper-educated urban cosmopolitan upper-middle class journalists have a Pauline Kael problem [sic] when it comes to assessing the public's impressions of Hillary Clinton. The Village has inculcated the right-wing myth that Real America out there in the heartland (even though there are more World of Warcraft players than farmers) hates Clinton and will never vote for her, backed up by her weak performance in the 2000 Senate election. But this just doesn't pass the smell test. Clinton will have had a full year to restore her image by the time the Iowa caucuses roll around. Should she become the nominee, the public will experience a billion dollars worth of pro-Clinton messaging as well as even more free favorable free media coverage. What's more, in a fashion similar to a certain former Texas governor, Clinton could end up benefiting from her negative image; once TV viewers realize they don't turn to stone upon seeing her, they will be perfectly willing to reevaluate their preconceptions of her.
I will say that while I always expected Clinton to fare better than her 2005 or 2006 favorable ratings might have indicated, I didn't expect she would be able to improve her favorable figures this much this quickly; I thought she would have to do more than just show up on midday talk show circuit to improve her favorables, and that the Democratic primary electorate would not be particularly eager to nominate a candidate whose record and rhetoric has all the hallmarks of a centrist. But hey, I'm part of the hyper-educated urban cosmopolitan upper-middle class. What do I know about Democratic voters in suburban Des Moines?
-signed, not Ezra Klein.
