In looking at the election results, I can't help but think that Al Gore may have been right in declining President Clinton's campaign help in 2000.
I have not done a full study, but it seems that more often than not, the candidate for whom Clinton campaigns loses.
In the 2002 Florida governor's race, Bush and McBride were running neck and neck until Clinton went to Florida to campaign for McBride - at which point, McBride sunk like a stone and Bush won re-election handily.
Clinton also campaigned for Bill Curry for governor of Connecticut - a Democratic state that went for Clinton twice - and Curry lost handily to John Rowland.
This time, from what I saw, Clinton campaigned in Florida for Kerry, as well as western states like Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado. Bush carried all of them.
It has been acknowledged that Clinton is best for firing up the Democratic base. But it seems that he also fires up the Republican base, and gets them out to vote against the person that he is pushing. Would this have been true in 2000 before he left office, or was it the manner in which he left office (purchased pardons, stolen furniture, White House vandalism, etc.) that brought this about? Or is Bill Clinton still an asset if used properly?
And more pertinent for 2008, what about Hillary? I didn't notice her doing too much campaigning for John Kerry (big surprise) but she did campaign for Kerry in Florida. She also campaigned for Diane Farrell, the Democratic candidate running against Christopher Shays, a moderate incumbent Republican, for the CT 4th district Congressional seat. Though this district was won narrowly by John Kerry, Farrell lost. What was the overall success rate of the candidates for whom she campaigned?
Does anyone else have any thoughts on the Clinton effect, either Bill or Hillary?
Obviously there are many other potential causes for these candidates losing; correlation is not the same as causation. It's interesting to note, but certainly doesn't prove anything.
Clinton had high approval ratings upon leaving office, and if anything is viewed more favorably now, after leaving office, then he was at the time of his departure. He does fire up both bases, but I fail to see how he would be a liability with swing voters.
At the same time, people don't often base their vote on endorsements, which are, generally speaking, one of the most overrated things in politics. So while Clinton doesn't hurt with swing voters at all, he likely doesn't help much either. He can convince a few people, but it's not going to have a dramatic effect.
The statements of the candidates themselves, as well as outside events, will have a much greater impact, and thus it is difficult to determine whether Clinton helped or not, or how much.
