New York Times charges again that Clinton could be a drag -- unworried that nothing supports this argument

The New York Times is at it again. Every month, a major newspaper comes out with a story recounting how Democrats in red states are worrying on Clinton's effect on down-the-ballot races should she be the nominee. The LA Times did the most high-profile of such articles earlier in the fall. Here's the NYT's most recent take, in a piece published this morning:

Mrs. Clinton is a long way from winning the Democratic presidential nomination, and over the last few weeks has struggled to hang on to the air of inevitability that she has been cultivating all year. But the possibility that she will be the nominee is already generating concern among some Democrats in Republican-leaning states and Congressional districts, who fear that sharing the ticket with her could subject them to attack as too liberal and out of step with the values of their constituents.

Sounds like something you have already read? You bet. And every time, this is presented as a new rising worry! The article goes on to study the case fo Kansas's 2nd district, which is systematically presents as the main example where Clinton's could drag Democrats down -- despite the fact that Rep. Boyda never feeds an anti-Clinton quote to the journalists. All in all, the story quotes a few Republicans talking about how much their party hates Clinton.

And contrary to the lead's assertion, the article does not quote a single Democrat who worries about Clinton's nomination. So where is the story?

The worse part is that poll after poll have debunk the idea that Clinton would drown and take her party with her if she became the nominee. In fact, Clinton consistantly polls very well in states that Bush won with over 60% in 2004. While Obama often looks more electable in Midwestern states, Clinton is consistently much stronger stronger in places like Alabama and... Kansas. A quick review of the most recent polls from some of these red states. We'll use the numbers matching Clinton to the two most likely nominees Giuliani and Romney.

• Let's start with Kansas, the state in which Clinton will supposedly sink Boyda. A poll out last week has Clinton trailing Giuliani 49% to 43%. She leads Romney 48% to 44%. Bush won the state 62% to 37%.
• In Alabama, a SUSA poll out last week has Clinton trailing Giuliani 50-45 and ties Romney. The numbers are similar to another November poll from Rasmussen. Bush won the state 63% to 37%.
• The red state where Clinton has been the most consistent has been Kentucky. The most recent poll from the state was released on November 24th and has Clinton leading Giuliani 48% to 44% and crushign Romney 54% to 39%. Bush won the state by 20%.
• In the latest Missouri poll, Clinton crushes Rudy Giuliani 48% to 39%, and is ahead by a similar margin against Romney.
• In Georgia, Clinton trails Giuliani 48% to 44% in a three-weeks-old poll. Kerry got demolished here 58% to 41%.
• The same day, a Tennessee poll has Clinton trailing Giuliani 45% to 42% and leading Romney 43% to 42%.

Note: This is not an argument to say that Clinton is more electable than Obama or Edwards; while she typically runs the strongest in very red states, she is often out-polled by her rivals in Midwestern states that could be more crucial in the general election. This is also not to argue that the GOP has lost the presidential race, for Republicans are very competitive in states like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

The point simply is that Hillary Clinton gives no indication of being a drag on the party in red states; quite the contrary, she appears to motivate Democratic voters to rally around the party in a way they have not done in decades.

But why should the New York Times consider these polls? For it has a poll of its own -- and that is perhaps the most frustrating part of the article:

Democrats say they have not polled on the issue, though a private survey that surfaced this year found that the nomination of either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama could cut into support for House Democrats in tough districts.

So now the New York Times is suggesting that all Democrats would drag the party down in down-the-ballot races? The Times has discovered the basic fact that there is such a thing called presidential coattails, and that it is always harder for Democrats to win in red territory in a presidential year than in midterms. Plus, the poll the New York Times is referring to is very old and is being quoted in every single article written about this issue. How much longer can a storyline be driven by one single poll?