Even after her auto bailout attack fell flat in Michigan, Hillary Clinton is doubling down, again hitting presidential rival Sen. Bernard Sanders over his 2009 vote against the aid package — but analysts say the strategy is a tough sell, and that it will be very difficult for the former secretary of state to pull working-class voters to her side by zeroing in on the issue.
Mrs. Clinton launched the repeat assault during Wednesday night’s Democratic primary debate in Miami, a forum that came less than a week before voters in Florida, North Carolina and the key Midwestern states of Ohio, Illinois and Missouri go the polls. Polls show Mrs. Clinton ahead in all those states, but they looked similar in Michigan in the days before that state voted.
The auto bailout attack — clearly designed to siphon blue-collar workers from the auto sector and elsewhere from Mr. Sanders’ side to Mrs. Clinton’s — not only seemed to have little impact in Tuesday’s Michigan primary, which the Vermont senator won, but it may have backfired. Exit polls showed Mr. Sanders winning white, working-class voters by significant margins.
Despite that, Mrs. Clinton seems to still believe there is political gain in hammering away at Mr. Sanders for his auto stance. She rejected Mr. Sanders’ claim that he wanted to save the auto industry but voted against the broader $700 billion package because it also contained bailout money for Wall Street.
“The fact is, the money that rescued the auto industry was in that bill. Sen. Sanders voted against it,” she said in a heated exchange at the Miami debate. “If everyone voted as he voted, we would not have rescued the auto industry.”
Mr. Sanders has vehemently denied that characterization, pointing out that he voted in favor of a standalone auto bailout bill. He tried to turn the tables on Mrs. Clinton by again highlighting her close ties to Wall Street and her vote for the big-bank bailout.
SEE ALSO: Bernie Sanders campaign accuses Hillary Clinton of breaking debate rules
“That was the bailout of the recklessness, irresponsibility and illegal behavior of Wall Street. It was the Wall Street bailout,” Mr. Sanders said in response.
Heading into next week’s primaries, the Clinton campaign hopes to avoid a repeat of the stunning result in Michigan by making an all-out push for middle-class voters.
But political specialists say Mrs. Clinton faces an uphill battle in that regard and will find it difficult, if not impossible, to compete with Mr. Sanders for their votes.
Still, the former first lady is right to try to appeal to those blue-collar voters in states such as Ohio as she lays the groundwork for a general election campaign, according to Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution.
“It is going to be hard for Clinton to beat Sanders among blue-collar workers because of his strong record on trade and worker rights. But Clinton needs to keep his margin down so it doesn’t hurt her in the fall. With Trump having crossover appeal, the big industrial states will be crucial for her,” Mr. West said.
Indeed, Mr. Sanders performs better in hypothetical general election polls against Mr. Trump than does Mrs. Clinton, likely because many blue-collar voters are disgusted with the federal government and are drawn to the anti-establishment messages put forth by the Republican billionaire and the self-described socialist senator.
SEE ALSO: Hillary Clinton says email indictment ‘not gonna happen’
Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, widely is viewed as part of the Washington establishment and has relied heavily on Wall Street donors to fund her campaign.
Mr. Sanders also has gone after Mrs. Clinton for supporting free-trade deals such as NAFTA and most-favored-nation trade status for China, arguing those agreements hurt the middle class, especially in states such as Ohio and Michigan. President Obama on Thursday seemed to agree with the senator, saying past trade deals supported by Democrats haven’t been good for the country.
“I believe that there have been bad trade deals on occasion in the past that oftentimes they have served the interests of global corporations but not necessarily served the interests of workers,” the president said.
Even though Mrs. Clinton has a more than two-to-one lead in the all-important delegate race, analysts say it’s important that she make a concerted effort to attract working-class voters, especially if Mr. Trump is the GOP nominee.
“It’s possible this would become an issue and it certainly would be the basis for appeals by Trump in the fall,” said Michael Traugott, a political science professor at the University of Michigan, referring to the possibility Mrs. Clinton could lose blue-collar voters in states such as Michigan and Ohio to Mr. Trump.
“He’d have a reasonable shot at reactivating the people who were called Reagan Democrats in the 1980s,” Mr. Traugott added.
• Ben Wolfgang can be reached at bwolfgang@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.