HIllary Clinton As An Efficiently Priced Security

A theory, developed in conjunction with reader M.V., about why she's had trouble.

Clinton is like an efficiently priced security: the market -- i.e., the voting public -- already possessed an enormous amount of information about her.

Changing your support for a candidate is highly liquid, and that virtually everything that you could say or think about her has essentially been priced in. (Experience, Bill Clinton, strength, toughness, etc.)

Events push her numbers up or down but, at it's root, the overall national market puts her around 40%.

She has probably the least volatile polling track record in recent American history. (Try to find any other presidential candidate in the last three decades with as flat a national tracking number in the 12 months prior to the nomination being decided, or six months, or even three months.)

Second: It's also probably the first time in history of presidential primaries (of either party) that someone with the apparently unflinching support of 40% of voters from the outset couldn't move more than 1 in 6 of the remaining 60% to go on and win.

And these are Democrats!

Comments

Quite right. Because she was so well known and opted to run as a quasi-incumbent, the key data point was that she consistently ran below 50%. From the beginning, there were more Democrats against her, than for her. And it has stayed that way. The questions in the race were (1) how quickly the alternatives would drop to one, and (2) whether that one would be broadly acceptable to those who wanted someone other than Hillary. The answers were (1) quickly enough, and (2) yes.

Posted by TKD | February 28, 2008 2:59 PM

"It's also probably the first time in history of presidential primaries (of either party) that someone with the apparently unflinching support of 40% of voters from the outset couldn't move more than 1 in 6 of the remaining 60% to go on and win. "

Correct, but this shouldn't be a surprising phenomenon. Hillary always captured a certain segment of die-hard Democratic loyalists, and put off an even larger segment of independents and die-hard Republicans. She has a very tight floor, and even tighter ceiling. Her advisors should have been much more concerned with those early polls showing 50% of Americans would never, ever vote for her.

Posted by Will | February 28, 2008 3:28 PM

I'm glad someone besides me noticed this. In her polling from early 2007 it showed almost 100% of the public knew her and already had formed an opinion of her... 50% of which were negative.

That's one reason Obama got in the race... she had very little upside potential.

Posted by Chuck | February 28, 2008 3:34 PM

Marc,

Talking of efficiently priced securities do you think OBAMA is EFFICIENTLY PRICED?

I would argue that OBAMA is OVERVALUED. He is like a HOT INTERNET STOCK in the late 1990s, overvalued, no fundamentals, hyped, full of momentum, and one bad news away from CRASHING.

Posted by Tom | February 28, 2008 3:35 PM

But for running into Barack Obama's machine, she would have won the nomination essentially by default. I remember reading long ago that her nomination was almost a foregone conclusion simply because she was the only one with a good fundraising pipeline. Richardson, Edwards, Biden- they were never serious contenders.

It was Obama's skill in skirting the Clintons' hold on fundraising and the big-state political machinery with his caucus/small state strategy that made the difference.

Posted by Helter | February 28, 2008 3:36 PM

Obama has a lower absolute floor but a much, much higher absolute ceiling.

Posted by Korha | February 28, 2008 3:36 PM

In other words, OBAMA is an extremely VOLATILE security.

Posted by Tom | February 28, 2008 3:44 PM

The biggest payoff generally comes from the securities the market undervalues. Hillary is the GE of politics. Paid off big in the 1990s, been kind of ordinary since then.

Posted by Rid | February 28, 2008 3:59 PM

The fundamental reason that Dodd, Biden, Richardson and the like got in with Edwards and Clinton, why Kerry was going to go for it again, and why Obama got in the race was a recognition of the fact that a lot of DEMOCRATS have serious issues with the Clintons: forget Independents and Republicans. Hillary is actually doing great given her natural issuses.

That's what makes this so fundamentally frustrating to me when I read Geraldine Ferraro and Gloria Steinem and the like talking about how sexism has counted Clinton out: NOT. The fact is Barack Obama with his race and name is going to have FAR more social issues thrown at him than Clinton would likely have faced. The problem with HRC is herself.

If Elizabeth Edwards were in the same position she would take this in a walk. If Michele Obama had been in the same position she would have taken this in a run. Hillary Clinton is apparently a warm, funny, compassionate, excellent friend in private. We've only seen hints of this in public, and every time the public has been charmed. For some reason, she has a hard time letting herself shine like that while I don't see that problem with Ms. Edwards or Ms. Obama: and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the same way IMO unlike Maria Shriver.

Maria Shriver would kick ass in the political arena, you could see it in the endorsement she made of Obama. She's excellent.

That ability is essential in any candidate. Clinton doesn't have enough of it to seal the deal against Obama, that's all. I think if Maria Shriver, Elizabeth Edwards, or Michelle Obama had her resume and background and their personality it would have been over in Iowa in January.

Posted by Rhoda | February 28, 2008 4:03 PM

Rhoda, your post is absolutely spot-on. How I wish Ferraro/Schroeder/Steinem could read it but it probably wouldn't get through... It's not that the nation is sexist; HRC is simply the wrong candidate. Though I do not support all of Dianne Feinstein's stands, I'm willing to bet that, if she were 10-15 years younger, she'd be a terrific nominee. (Some of the very stands I oppose would make her a crossover shoo-in.) HRC's biggest problem is that much of her 35 years of experience has been on her husband's coattails.

I still haven't recovered from Tom Ashbrook's show Monday, where Ferraro suggested that, should Obama be the nominee, women as a voting block would feel owed. As if women in general would feel disenfranchised if HRC is not the nominee... I'd have laughed if it wasn't so sad. I'll admit, at 50, I haven't had the same struggles. On the other hand, I was blessed to be raised among strong, independent women. Men were never the enemy. Only with respect to women's health issues have I felt separate in American society, and Obama's understands that.

Most of all, if I were to select the more extraordinary event, the rise of a formidable black candidated - only 44 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act - is breathtaking. A small part of why I want this race over next week is that, come 4/4/08, I want to see my party unified around Barack Obama. If there's a better way to honor the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King, I haven't heard of it.

Posted by Judy | February 28, 2008 4:36 PM

I'm amused by the suggestion that Obama can be compared to a hot Internet stock. That would make the question: is he Google, or one of the ones which went nowhere? Because, of course, he might be the Google that you wish you had invested in.

(Note that this refers to his ability to win the Presidency. It has nothing, good or bad, to do with how he would govern.)

Posted by wj | February 28, 2008 4:39 PM

It would be interesting to know if Clinton's price stability is a result of low liquidity. The second point (she couldn't get 10% of the remaining 60%) assumes that's the case. If true, the implication is that her strong demographics (women, Latinos, etc) were (a) more likely to commit to a candidate early, and (b) less likely to move away from that candidate. Which itself would be very intersting. Among other things, it suggests that Obama's wasting his efforts with Spanish-language appeals this late in the Texas game.

I think it's probably more likely that she has both lost and gained supporters, but these movements even out and she's stuck at 40-45%. For example, she got a third of the remaining 60%, but lost half of her supporters to Obama.

Posted by CG | February 28, 2008 4:52 PM

Tom - saying something in all caps doesn't make it more true or likely, sorry. If it did, we could ALL HAVE A MAGIC PONY.

Posted by justinb | February 28, 2008 5:02 PM

More like a efficiently priced, inversely correlated options. As time goes on, one or the other option will expire worthless.

Posted by Phil G | February 28, 2008 5:11 PM

justinb, the truth hurts, doesn't it? KEEP INVESTING IN OVERVALUED STOCKS!!!

Posted by Tom | February 28, 2008 5:34 PM

DICK MORRIS SAYS, “We are watching a grim re-enactment of all of the character traits that led Hillary to decompose in the healthcare debate of her husband’s first term. The blind reliance on a guru-delivered strategy, the religious insistence on following the same rhetorical line even when it obviously isn’t working, the inflexibility in adapting to one’s opposition, and the inability to formulate new strategies or to improvise tactics when her pre-conceptions are found to be so obviously faulty — this is Hillary.” Hillary Clinton is an ideologue, a Marxist (a lazy person’s politician). Marxism is monolithic, dogmatic, and inflexible; almost anything is more adaptable. Hillary & Marxism both rely on public perception and other means, over actual worth or achievement. Whichever candidate does the hard work, the heavy lifting, will have the wherewithal (value) to prevail and, win the vote: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | February 28, 2008 7:28 PM

Rhoda- it is ridiculas to say that Hillary's weakness as a candidate let obama into the race.
It is ridiculas to say that Elizabeth Edwards with no experience in or out of office nationally would "win this in a cakewalk".
There is something real about Obama that would have been more real against just about anybody. Hillary has maintained a very high level of support in the face of obama's profound appeal. there is still an amazing argument to be made for her campaign for many of us. Money is pouring into her candidacy too.
If Obama wasn't in the race Hillary would have won in a cakewalk. Edwards (John) would have posted more serious numbers but Hillary would have left the field in her dust and gasping. We'd be talking about who'd be in which cabinet post.
We live in astonishing times. Obama is part of a wave non of us could have really predicted 8 months ago.
Coke is running against pepsi and either would own the field if it weren't for the other.
Her candidacy has unrolled quite amazingly.
she is unprecedented.But Obama is even a newer thing. Clinton Hatred shouldn't get all the credit you want to give it. A lot of Hillary love and maybe even more Obama love out there.

Posted by Michael C. | February 28, 2008 8:00 PM

Dear Mark,
Are you speaking the popular vote? Take a look at the 'unvalued' popular votes of Michigan and Florida. Count them. Each of those states where voters actually showed up and in NY, NJ, NH, CA and etc. Hillary's popular votes-not poll numbers are more than 50% of the electorate. In fact..what are you speaking of?
I think if you are writing about an age group or 90 percent of blacks both of those demographics are interesting. Youth is split exactly down racial lines. What are you saying exactly? That Barak has the overwhelming support of blacks in the popular vote? I really don't get your point.
Why don't we all wait and see what other interesting data we observe after Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
What did you think of the debate? Are you really able to view these things with out a bend? This one was hard for me because of the 'slip' of the camera man.
Shouldn't we as Americans try to be open. I did try and was not convinced about Obama if Hillary loses. I am inclined to vote for John McCain in the general election because of Obamas indifference and 'joke' about Farakhan. I didn't feel the answer to the question warranted a joking response. It is to me very serious since I am the daughter of survivors of the Holocaust. Anyone who preaches 'hatred' should immediately be rejected by any candidate running on any platform in the US. There is no leeway there for me. I grew up with a Mother who woke in the middle of the night, year after year screaming from her nightmares caused by 'hatred' and evil.
So Mark-I cannot in good conscious move to Obama after his 'joke'. I will, if necessary, move to McCain who understands the basic tenant of good vs. evil as he is a surviver-if need be. MM

Posted by Marysia Miller | February 28, 2008 8:04 PM

Dear Mark,
Are you speaking the popular vote? Take a look at the 'unvalued' popular votes of Michigan and Florida. Count them. Each of those states where voters actually showed up and in NY, NJ, NH, CA and etc. Hillary's popular votes-not poll numbers are more than 50% of the electorate. In fact..what are you speaking of?
I think if you are writing about an age group or 90 percent of blacks both of those demographics are interesting. Youth is split exactly down racial lines. What are you saying exactly? That Barak has the overwhelming support of blacks in the popular vote? I really don't get your point.
Why don't we all wait and see what other interesting data we observe after Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
What did you think of the debate? Are you really able to view these things with out a bend? This one was hard for me because of the 'slip' of the camera man.
Shouldn't we as Americans try to be open. I did try and was not convinced about Obama if Hillary loses. I am inclined to vote for John McCain in the general election because of Obamas indifference and 'joke' about Farakhan. I didn't feel the answer to the question warranted a joking response. It is to me very serious since I am the daughter of survivors of the Holocaust. Anyone who preaches 'hatred' should immediately be rejected by any candidate running on any platform in the US. There is no leeway there for me. I grew up with a Mother who woke in the middle of the night, year after year screaming from her nightmares caused by 'hatred' and evil.
So Mark-I cannot in good conscious move to Obama after his 'joke'. I will, if necessary, move to McCain who understands the basic tenant of good vs. evil as he is a surviver-if need be. MM

Posted by Marysia Miller | February 28, 2008 8:04 PM

Hey Mark, What is thi I read about a top Obama 'official' reassuring Canada that Obama will not act on NAFTA and to "relax"? MM

Posted by MMiller | February 28, 2008 8:39 PM

Marysia - Obama smiled because Hillary insisted that "rejecting" something was different, and stronger, than "denouncing" it. (The Clintons are famous, or infamous, for this kind of word game.) It certainly had nothing to do with Farrakhan. Obama has been clear, for many years, about denouncing (and rejecting) the ugliness associated with Farrakhan. If you are being told otherwise, you are being misinformed. Check the facts.

Posted by TKD | February 29, 2008 12:25 AM

More likely -- Hillary Clinton as Enron.

She was a large cap security with a lot of name recognition that did not have the fundamentals to support her sky-high valuation. Like Enron, lots has been written about her by people who did not bother to do any basic research. In the end, she has turned out to be just a shell of a company; instead of being the smartest person in the room (like the Enron guys) she has turned out to be, well, not so much.

In my opinion, Hillary is an amateur politician who is only on the national stage because of her talented spouse. This has become more and more apparent as the weeks have gone by. All of her supposed strengths have turned out to be liabilities. The press is still swooning about her debating skills, but in truth every debate has hurt her position and made her look more silly. (She is now reduced to using comedy sketches as supporting evidence!)

Like Enron, her whole campaign is a house of cards that looked impressive from a distance but that has collapsed very rapidly. The only thing going for her now is the disbelief of the journalists at how far she has fallen. Any other candidate would have been laughed out of the race by this point, but the journalists have been working overtime to produce more and more implausable scenarios for how she could win.

Posted by George | February 29, 2008 11:33 AM

Marysia: "Anyone who preaches 'hatred' should immediately be rejected by any candidate running on any platform in the US. There is no leeway there for me."

Yesterday John McCain flew to Texas to proudly accept the endorsement of a radical white evangelical pastor, John Hagee. G.Greenwald has the goods on the double standard.

So vote for McCain if you want to in the general, but the only connection btw Farrakhan and Obama I see is that they both live in Chicago.

Let's hear Hillary denounce and reject David Duke, since their both white. Sheesh.

Posted by reggie | February 29, 2008 1:18 PM