Clinton

Jim Rogers of Texas A&M writes in response to my earlier post on Bill and Hillary:

Re your question: ‘Why run a candidate who immediately alienates a large proportion of the voting population?’

Answer: Because the median voter determines elections. If you alienate 49.99% of the voting population, you still win if you’re acceptable to the barest of majorities.

“That being said, most of the polls I’ve seen to date cap Hillary Clinton’s vote at around 48 percent.

“Some recent polls bounce her over 50 percent against some candidates. But given the electoral college setup, it’s entirely possible that that would be sufficient to win the election even without a third candidate in the race. And a third-party candidate on the right (or the center) could push the GOP candidate’s vote total below 48%. (Recall that’s how Bill Clinton won his first election w/ 43% of the popular vote – Perot ran as a third candidate, and Bush received only 37.4% of the popular vote.)

“Re your statement: ‘Bill Clinton’s prominence in the race makes Hillary’s candidacy seem all the more suicidal. His legacy as President is, even for Democrats, a mixed bag , and his conduct in the campaign has been off-putting in the extreme’ (emphasis added).

I think your assessment is wrong regarding Democrat assessments of Bill Clinton. From my ‘voting behavior’ colleagues, I hear that polls suggest that Bill Clinton remains quite popular among Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents. If he could run again for president, he’d be making a race of it – indeed, he’d be even more electable than Hillary.”