Obama
Favorables
(1) Obama certainly seems to have more appeal to independents, which of course is key in the swing states. In theory, he would match up very well with a GOP base-pleaser nominee like Huckabee (or Romney?). He could even put states like VA and AZ into play.
(2) Obama potentially could lead to a greater turnout by young voters as well as African-American voters. There’s a greater untapped market here since the voting numbers are typically lower amongst these groups.
Unfavorables
(1) I wonder (and hope) if I’m being too pessimistic that Obama’s race will hurt with some members of otherwise Democratic-leaning groups, such as working-class whites and Latinos. I am not suggesting without evidence that these groups as a whole are somehow “more racist” against African-Americans, but the question has been raised before so it remains a concern.
(2) While I am confident that Obama is experienced enough to be a successful President, someone like McCain would pound away at Obama’s sometimes perceived lack of experience, potentially causing concern with undecideds.
Clinton
Favorables
(1) Hillary’s support from women is very strong, and women, of course, constitute a central part of the Democratic base as well as the majority of voters. Is it realistic to think that the vast majority of undecided women will, when in the booth, ultimately mark the ballot for her?
(2) Clinton is also strong among other sections of the Democratic base, including older voters — one of the groups most apt to vote.
(3) Clinton has very strong support amongst Latinos, at least compared to Obama. If she can maintain a large advantage amongst this group as against the Republican as well, it would be very significant.
Unfavorables
(1) Clinton’s negatives are very high, especially with Republicans and GOP-leaning independents, so crossover appeal is severely limited. Is Clinton hatred so intense that the Republican could get support from a significant percentage of people who wouldn’t otherwise vote in the election?
(2) Relatedly, even if Clinton is able to fire up the Democratic base, will this just pad the victory numbers already-in-the-bag states like MA and NY, while losing necessary crossover votes in IA, NH, OH, etc.?
(3) If Clinton wins the nomination, we’d probably see the largest gender gap in exit poll history. I’m not sure if she can narrow this gap by improving the numbers with male voters.
In the end, I certainly think that either Obama and Clinton could win, though I would be a bit worried about a potential matchup against McCain. However, it seems like Obama is more of a “boom or bust” candidate — his potential general election support could run the entire realistic range, from say 44% to 56% — whereas Clinton’s potential range is far tighter (maybe 48%-52%).
Anyway, this is all pretty much conventional wisdom on the topic anyway, but what do you think? Which of these concerns are legit? Are there even any real differences between the two in electability? I would have hoped that I’d come to a decision by now…
John Edwards is still in this race and it is far from over.
<
p>Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all Republicans in head to head matchups.
<
p>Obama and Hillary both lose to McCain.
be crushed by either McCain or Romney. What the all to wrong polls show today have no credibility come next November (my opinion-admittedly).
<
p>McCain vs Edwards is an experienced well known and well liked respected figure, has a record of accomplishment in the senate and a military record. Edwards has neither. It would be experienced maverick vs ambulance chaser in the distilled media narrative. Edwards who cosponsored the IWR would have a hard time as the peace candidate
<
p>Romney vs Edwards: It is the hero of the Olympics, successful (supposedly) governor vs trial lawyer with a thin record in his one term in Washington. Edward as working man champ could maybe be sold vs layoff artist Romney. Mitt however can tout universal health care in MA and hold up all the Edwards stuff that contradicts his economic populist image: from haircuts to hedge funds.
<
p>I could be wrong and I am not asserting that I know for sure. If I were a Repub operative I would love to run against Edwards.
<
p>
just remember in 2004 when all the Repub operatives were clamoring to run against Edwards!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ir5…
As of 4:26pm 2007-01-16, it sure looks like McCain beats Edwards as well…
<
p>RCP Average 12/12 to 01/12 – 44.0% 42.3% McCain +1.7%
<
p>Hotline/FD 01/10 – 01/12 803 RV 47% 39% McCain +8%
Zogby 12/12 – 12/14 1000 LV 46% 42% McCain +4%
Rasmussen 12/12 – 12/13 800 LV 39% 46% Edwards +7%
And an excellent summary, I might add. I’m still not 100% decided either but I do take issue with one line (which is pretty incredible given the length and breadth of the post) you’ve got. You say
<
p>
<
p>I’d say her perceived negatives are very high. I’m not quite certain what her negatives are that don’t relate to Obama as well. They’re both taking money from special interests I don’t care for, they’re both towing the line on some issues I don’t like, etc.
<
p>The one big difference, though the Clinton camp has gone to great lengths to try to say there isn’t one, is that Clinton voted for Iraq and Obama didn’t support it at the time. People can feel free to quibble about that (preferably in another thread) but other than that what are her negatives?
Her primary positive: She is Hillary Clinton, and was closely involved in the William Jefferson Clinton administration.
<
p>Her primary negative: She is Hillary Clinton, and was closely involved in the William Jefferson Clinton administration.
I’ve thought for a long time that Clinton-Obama would make a powerhouse ticket, with a balance of styles, experiences, etc. This could bring out a lot of voters. I agree with a lot of the analysis in the initial post.
… but no stronger than Obama-????.
<
p>If Obama gets the nomination, mainstream Dems will vote for him. Who else are they going to vote for? None of the Repubs have crossover appeal. But if Hillary gets the nomination, all the Independents and (small fraction of) Republicans that are voting for Obama aren’t necessarily going to vote for her. Some undoubtedly will, but not all.
<
p>So the question is, what does Clinton bring to a Clinton-Obama ticket that Obama doesn’t already have without her? Experience? Maybe. But if that was Independents’ main concern, they’d be voting for her already … and they’re not.
McCain.
<
p>He has crossover appeal. Some Dems don’t like any given candidate, and McCain seems palateable and moderate. Some Dems are just plain more moderate — they’re not as motivated by Iraq or are hawkish. They buy in to the “straight talk” hogwash. McCain also grabs indies.
<
p>And let’s face it — if GOP faithful have to choose McCain or [Clinton or Obama], they’re likely to choose McCain overwhelmingly.
Do you see this as appealing to moderates and independants?
Many have been waiting for someone to finaly come out and say what the objective is in IRAQ.
Define victory? Remember that.
McCain finaly did … pacify them with force and then permanently occupy, like Korea ect …
Noone has ever come out and said that before .. when that image sinks in no one but the most ardent hawks will get anywhere near him IMO …
no GOP candidate except Paul seems appropriate, although any GOP candidate could easily change his position citing “new data and results” to point to a withdrawal.
<
p>However, I suspect that for many voters, Iraq just isn’t as important an issue, or is one where they don’t mind being in Iraq. Keep in mind that McCain’s Iraq statement equated presence there to South Korea — no Americans dying, and not spending nearly as much money. I do think that this vision for Iraq is attractive to lots of moderates, hawkish or just generally distrustful of the Middle East.
I hemmed and hawed for a long time about whether I’d rather see Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton. I concluded that the former would be better for governing, but the latter would be better for campaigning. I ultimately decided that now is not the time to focus on campaign games, but to have someone who I know can hit the ground running on day one. Obama would make an even better President after a term or two as Veep.
I considered the idea in another post, though the consensus seems to be that the ticket is very unlikely.
<
p>I still think it is a decent (and very exciting!) possibility, but unfortunately I’ll still have to make my choice in the primary before any tickets are formed đŸ˜‰
I have noted, over the last few days, increasing reference to Obama’s church, whose minister has made it a point over the last few months to praise and honor Louis Farrakhan for his work in analyzing the racial ills of the nation.
<
p>Obama has indicated that he is close to his pastor, and thus far has not been adept at distancing himself from supporters to turn out to be odious in some way. That could make this into a big issue.
Maybe I’ve been in a “fog” myself but I’d never heard about this. Did some quick digging and found this statement by ADL head Abe Foxman from today (I wonder what could have prompted this today….?)
<
p>It basically says that Obama condemned Farrakhan. Too bad it took a column in the Washington Post but it is done in any case.
I had seen what must have been an earlier Obama statement to the effect, paraphrased, that the pastor must have intended to honor Farrakhan’s work with ex-cons or something, which clearly is not the case.
<
p>The problem may not be Farrakhn, but this Rev. Wright, who sounds, um, not politically palatable, but nevertheless seems to be close to Obama.
<
p>Preferable that this stuff come out now, rather than in October, when it could be fatal.
Mind you, we suck at second guessing swing voters. This article has good anecdotal stuff about them that confirms a lot of my suspicions — last-minute undecided swingers are basically idiots who feel that they should vote, and do so on the hardest to understand reasons.
<
p>I will say that the appeal/charisma that Obama exudes would be a key part to winning over such folks. He does better in “intangibles” than does Hillary. However, Huckabee has some good intangibles himself (I’m still more worried about him than I am about Mr. 100 years in Iraq)
<
p>A far greater concern of mine than the state of play come April is a candidate’s ability to change the game during the campaign. Hillary’s negatives are so high because the Republicans have already rolled out their narrative on her…I say that Obama’s are low because that effort is only in the ground stages. Specifically, I’d think about a candidate’s ability to “punch back” — to fend off inevitable Republican attacks. For example, Kerry took months to respond to the “Swift Boat” smear. Hillary wouldn’t have. Obama — I’m not sure.
<
p>Hillary handled Rick Lazio brilliantly, and frankly is handling this race brilliantly. She saw Obama’s best effort in New Hampshire and did push back (it doesn’t have to be a counter-attack) with success. She’s coming out of this “race” imbroglio even or better, getting in the last most powerful word (through Rangel). If Obama had better hands, Clyburn would have followed through on his ruminations of joining his column.
<
p>Thus far, I haven’t seen Obama “punch back” with any efficacy. He is missing the pitch on rumors of his religion, and hasn’t mentioned others’ use of his campaign themes. Even with Edwards playing loyal flunky, Obama lost the New Hampshire debate mainly because Hillary stood her ground and Obama had no answer for that. Hillary knows how to make others regret tangling with her…does Obama?
…cemented the perception of leadership by squashing the whole Clintons as racist thing right as the press blew it out of proportion. His Silence bothered me greatly as he let it play out seemingly to his advantage. More the act of a calculated politician taking every advantage to get elected rather than a dynamic leader. Ultimately given the strong words of Lewis, Rangel and Sharpton it all may have blown back on him. Still not ready for prime time in my opinion.
Remember Obama did make quite a NH deficit over several months so his 3% loss isnt so bad if you look over the prior months. He did a great job with David Axelrod’s team pulling together a wide list of small donors which appeared to have caught the Clinton’s by surprise in the first reporting quarter.
<
p>
Hillary totally crushed the opposition in Michigan :p
I’m pretty sure the emoticon was meant to express the irony that Clinton won because there was no opposition.
I think Clinton beats all GOPs not named McCain, but is even odds against McCain.
<
p>I think Obama probably beats all GOPs not named McCain, but also probably beats McCain.
<
p>
<
p>If I only blindly cared about getting a Dem in the White House, I’d run Clinton against non-McCain and Obama against McCain.
<
p>For that reason, I think an Obama-Clinton ticket is stronger than a Clinton-Obama ticket… not that I think either ticket is particularly likely.
I agree with all of Sabutai’s earlier post comparing Clinton and Obama ability to punch-back at detractors…the GOP has been skewering Clinton for 2 decades and she still stands having learned how to counter them…they have not even begun to take Obama apart yet, but you can bet they will.
<
p>I agree with stormv that Clinton and Obama can ultimately beat all GOP candidates not named McCain (in spite of any high negatives)…
<
p>I even think either Clinton or Obama can beat McCain, even by smaller margins in the end…
<
p>WITH ONE EXCEPTION. If it’s an Obama vs. McCain race and McCain is clever enough to put a woman on the ticket, all bets are off…there may be enough disappointed, angry women to cross-over to McCain (who already appeals to independents) to erase the small margin of victory Dems. might have had.
<
p>Obama cannot put a woman on his ticket. That would be too much history for the electorate to change in one cycle. (Unfortunate but true)
.. could forsee voting for Obama if he faced a completely hideous foe (McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Guiliani or umm, that other guy ..) đŸ™‚
Obama has a certain UNKNOWN quality that while not outright appealing might at least be alluring.
This sentiment might change if he ever gets into specifics but on a few points where he has attempted to distinguish himself from the others he has scored points with me (no healthcare MANDATE for example).Plus he has credibility opposing the war albeit he is continuing to squander that credibility.
Under no circumstance would I vote for Hillary.
Even if Bush could run again I would write in my dog or vote 3rd party before voting Hillary.
Just my 2 cents.
I’m curious about the intensely negative reaction to Hillary. Why so certain?
Hmm … This could get lengthy, but since you asked I’ll try to summarize đŸ™‚
<
p>Hillary is to me what Romney is to many here.
Completly full of herself. How to recap so many fond memories in one short capsule.
For starters I was no big fan of the Bill years. I was keenly aware of the tightening job market in the 1990 time frame when Nafta legislation was looming and was strongly opposed to Bill’s phoney populism in 1992. Unfortunatly people bought it then and today we cant find a single widget not imported from someplace … I could go on and on but this is the start of the souring … Remember Hillary does nothing to distance herself from this failure.
Also it became apparent that much of the endless special prosecutor investigations of the 1990s were focused on Hillary legal career and not Bill … so by the time Hillary enters politics on her own the taste is already quite acidic, like everything they touch goes bad but they walk away richer and leave you with some swan song.
So in 2000 she runs for the senate on a platform of complete hoak and again people by it.
Invest in infrastructure translated into kickbacks for telecom .. the upstate didnt exist to her .. 9-11 was a granstanding opportunity … she pandered the war and now wont admit it was wrong, she heads the senate India caucus, she will unabashedly outsource your livelyhood and smile at you while she lies about how much she cares …..
Some politicians just dont get it.
With Hillary its worse because she does.
Her presidential campaign …. Its all about ego, not ideas … “look at me, Im the queen …. If you grovel maybe I will throw you a crumb”.
Well I dont want her handouts. I want her thumb off the scale and then let things level out where they may.
No soup for you is what I say to Hillary …
Next đŸ™‚
Lol
You don’t like her husband.
<
p>You hate her husband’s NAFTA proposal.
(which Sen. Clinton said in one of the televised debates did not work out the way it was designed to and needed serious modification)
<
p>You dislike the law firm she worked for in Arkansas.
(which was investigated eight ways to the middle by the opposition to no outcome other than calling her integrity into question for political gain…the Special Prosecutor was a costly waste of tax dollars as it all turned out.)
<
p>You think her Senate campaign was all “hoak” …I’m not sure what that word means but I assume it’s negative…the people of NY, upstate included, did not agree with you…they elected her AN after 6 years, RE-ELECTED her.
<
p>You say she pandered the war and will not admit a vote mistake…that is legitimate reason for your expressed hate/anger for your her, I guess, you disagree on an issue…although she does not see the vote as a mistake and has explained that whenever askea dn if being against the war is pandering, then every politician opposing Bush’s war is pandering (talking a lot about ending it but not really doing anything to stop it) along with Sen. Clinton.
<
p>You imply in your post that one reason you can’t vote for is is that she got “kick backs” from telcom companies…that is not true and if you think you can prove such an assertion, you should do it.
<
p>You assert that she forgot about up state NY…not according to the many farm, business, education, social services and municipal people from up state who are strongly supporting her and singing the praises of her assistance for them…perhaps they are being untruthful.
<
p>As for your accusation that she did “9/11 grandstanding”… this was your weakest brick…she IS the US Senator from New York…imagine the state’s own US Senator being in NYC following the attack! (right next to the Panderer-In -Chief)
the big difference is that when the cameras left, she stayed…ask the police, fire, emergency responders, construction workers who clean-up the site…they will tell you that no one has worked harder or stood taller for them in the months and years that have passed than Sen. Clinton…when the Bush Adm.and GOP refused to even recognize the illnesses and debilitation caused by the toxic site that resulted during the collapse and aftermath at the site, she pushed back for them, and still does. That’;s why the construction unions in paticular in NY and NJ and other states stand with her now. They know her work as a Senator…up close and personal.
<
p>Be against her. It’s your right and privilege. Hate her if you must. (Although, I would suggest that hating takes too much energy and should not be wasted on politicians unless you are a talk jock who gets alot of bucks for hating)
<
p>Just come up with better reasons, specific actions that SHE took that you do not agree with, legislation that SHE wrote, supported or helped pass that you think is wrong-headed.
<
p>So far, you have one…the war authorization vote…that will be enough for some folks…but not enough for others…there are a lot of issues out there.
A poster asked why it was that I would not support “The Clintons” under any circumstance. I answered. I answered that it was not about a specific tit for tat or a reaction to any direct alegation that could succesfully be litigated in a court of law. God knows how many have tried. And why exactly is that?
Fortunatly in matters of my personal opinion I need no indisputable evidence. All I need to know is I am entitled to my opinion and that opinion is formed over 20 years of always coming up just short, a reasonable suspicion, and having people like you always conveniently around to explain to me how misguided my common flipping sense is reenforces the sentiment.
If life were truly random some people wouldnt always come up so lucky. Too much of a good thing, ya know? 20 years is most of my adult life along with most everyone breathings time around.
Enough already. Time for actual change.
In conclusion … Nice commercial but ……
NO SOUP FOR YOU
Next …..
Many people say, “I could never, will never vote for Hillary”…when I ask why, they are always as vague as a Seinfeld episode…I didn’t ask for soup, I asked for substance.
<
p>And by the by…anyone who has follwed my posts knows that I was Biden, Biden, Biden…the most qualified candidate on either side…I am not defending Hillary Clinton out of any over-zealous supporter compulsion…but, as I watch the Democrats slowly but surely cut themselves with a thousand silly cuts at the risk of losing what should have been a sure win this year, I am going to speak up when rumors or untruths pop up in front of me.
<
p>You should support who you want. It’s your right…as I said in the first post. And it’s my right to differ with you.
<
p>That’s what makes politics.
A feeling that takes 20 years to build up will not just go away. I speak for myself, but I find that I encounter a great many people who are ideologicaly similar … and there is always that “feeling” …
That’s what I’m getting at…people have a “feeling” but something caused that feeling…upon examination of what caused it, sometimes it comes down to things that were beyond her control or authority, unwarranted guilt by association with the acts of others, and pure and simple GOP spin targets.
<
p>I’m just one of those hopeless fools who thinks you should judge people by their OWN acts and hold them accountable by that standard. Then if you choose to reject them for a better, stronger, more qualified candidate, you are on solid ground.
<
p>I would say the same for every candidate.
…NAFTA was largely negotiated by the GHWBush administration. Billary signed the implementing legislation in the fall of 1993 (I’ll agree that nobody forced him to sign it), but it really was a bi-partisan boondoggle.
<
p>And I haven’t seen any of the Dem contenders this year who are seriously proposing repeal of the legislation. NAFTA screwed the Canadians and the Mexicans, to the benefit of US big business.
Hillary detractors say she cannot take any credit for White House Years because she was just a WIFE and not elected to any position of responsibility before the US Senate (x2)…and in the next breath they blame her (“Billary”) for every bill that President Clinton signed while in office…
<
p>have it one way or the other, can’t have both.
<
p>If she needs to take the blame for anything bad in the Clinton years, at least give her credit for the good…I would trade the economy and the national deficit of the 9O’s for what we have now, would you?
<
p>GOP says they don’t want spending (but they like to spend)…what they are into is borrowing…they like to borrow big time…and that’s where we are as a result.
<
p>Maybe because we learned something in 2004.
<
p>David nailed “electability” in this comment
<
p>
You and David make a very good point re: electability. However, I don’t consider myself making my decision mainly on electability, as was the case in ’04 (for me, it was Clark first and Kerry second…so I don’t claim any special powers of prognostication!). I genuinely like both candidates, so going to what I think other people will think is more of a tiebreaker this time around.
<
p>Nevertheless, electability does seem to me to be an inevitable (and cabable of being predicted) factor at some point. After all, I think it’s fair to say that both Clinton and Obama are both more electable than Kucinich (just as McCain is more electable than Ron Paul). So it’s not completely a crapshoot. And given that the ultimate objective is to get a(ny) Democrat in the White House, I think electability should play at least a minor role, at least.
Clinton is the only candidate that could drive turnout amongst the dispirited GOP base. If Huckabee does not get nominated evangelicals will stay home in great droves especially if McCain or Romney head the ticket, if Huckabee is nominated than most of fiscal and security conservatives will desert the party in droves. But this potential fracturing which is highly likely considering the dispirited base and lack of enthusiasm for candidates amongst the GOP will completely unravel if Hillary Clinton is nominated.
<
p>Obama consistently beats every GOPer in head to head polls, he brings in a significant number of Republicans in certain polls, especially in the midwest. More IA Republicans liked Obama than their own candidates!
<
p>And as the IA and NH results show he definitely brings in a huge amount of young voters and independents to his candidacy. And black turnout which was at a historical low back in 2000 could jump to its highest ever with a black nominee.
<
p>Race is the only wild card and its one I think will help. The GOP which has been trying to increase its appeal to black voters (they ran far more black candidates for prominent office last year than the Dems) will be reluctant to attack Obama or else risk being painted as racist. Just look at the furor over the attack ads against Harold Ford.
<
p>So Id say Obama would be solidly electable while Hillary to paraphrase her husband would be a “roll of the dice”.
…the comment, and I do consider your point that young voters and African-American voters could turn out at greater rates if Obama was the nominee.
<
p>But what do you think of the idea that women voters would be more mobilized with a Hillary Clinton candidacy? Is that realistic to expect?
Women tend to break Democratic anyway so thats a constituency we don’t need to win over.
<
p>I do not think they will turn out in greater numbers to see their one of their own elected since gender is not as much of an identity as race is in this country or ethnicity. Remember the huge Catholic turnout for JFK. When a group has clearly been marginalized and considered an “other” by America when one of its own has the prospect of winning then it tends to support that person. Race, ethnicity, and religion define people far more than their gender does. Outside of feminists and gender studies majors I do not see women typically seeing themselves as women first. For a white christian woman living in America its about as good as being a man for all intensive purposes. The racial and ethnic differences though are far more profound.
<
p>Anyway that was a sidetrack to deflate the Steinmen argument but in any case black turnout will be its highest ever as will youth turnout, again both groups likely to swing blue anyway. What will be more interesting is that independents and Republicans really like Obama and especially in a change election, and he really embodies it more so than other candidates, he can really win. I think for independents who broke Bushs way in 2000 and 2004 the Clinton years are not times they remember fondly either and they would rather a completely fresh face.
and 60/50 is a much bigger break.
<
p>Then there’s the idea of turnout — what if the “break” is the same but turnout for women increases 10%?
<
p>Every vote is worth exactly 1. Women already break D, but that’s no reason to downplay the opportunity to get them in even larger numbers.
<
p>Don’t forget, they’re also a much larger percentage of the eligible voting population than African Americans are.
Not at the percentages that African Americans vote Democratic. If they did Democrats would have won the last two elections.
<
p>Once again, perhaps fittingly, democrats selecting a candidate for electability would do best to try and understand their red-state opposition.
<
p>I think this is a good thing.
According to this exit poll, Kerry beat Bush 51-48 with women. Given 121,480,019 votes [GWB + JFK + RN], that’s a margin of
61,954,800 – 58,310,400 = 3,644,400 votes.
<
p>Kerry beat Bush 88-11 on African Americans, who made up 11% of the vote. That’s worth 11,759,265.8392
13,362,800 – 1,293,500 = 12,069,300 votes.
<
p>It’s clear that African Americans [as a subset] were a bigger asset to JFK than women. Does this bode better for a female candidate [more room to grow] or an African American candidate [bigger delta]? Dunno. I know that if JFK beat GWB by 54-45 for women, he’d have picked up Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico and been elected POTUS 288-250.
<
p>Note that women are almost perfectly uniformly distributed throughout the country; African Americans are most certainly not. AA population per capita, JFK got
1. DC
6. MD
9. DE
13. NY
14. IL
<
p>Of the top 15, he got 5 states totaling 68 EVs. GWB got 10 states totaling 129 EVs.
<
p>It would appear that the advantage gained from African American voters in the POTUS race is neither substantial in terms of EVs nor has much room to grow, whereas gaining another few percent of advantage in females [without an offset in males, of course] would have a substantial impact in EVs.
Remember that neither candidate was African American though, the same logic you espouse that Kerry would have won states had he picked up more women is flawed for a few reasons.
<
p>The first is that women tend not to identify as women first before anything else and will be less likely to vote for a female candidate merely because she is a female.
<
p>The original JFK extended and expanded a key Democratic constituency-Catholics and had it turn out in record numbers. Catholics about broke even between Ike and Stevenson but overwhelming went for JFK. Similarly women broke nearly even between Bush and Kerry and to me women that voted for Bush are much less likely to vote for Clinton and I think it will not drastically improve female turnout since females vote more often than other groups anyway and again the lack of clear “one of us” indentity.
<
p>I think for African Americans turnout will be huge and while it might not matter for the electoral or popular vote it will make a bigger difference than females will.
<
p>To put it bluntly the one of us mentality cannot win the election so having a debate about which identity group will give more votes is rather silly. The question is will white men, especially independent ones, break for Clinton or Obama? I think they will definitely break for Obama but will go GOP with Clinton at the helm. This is a demographic that can actually win states.
that Clintney is clearly stronger in any electoral sense than Obamabee?
<
p>
If Iran is somehow “provoked” into doing something bizarre in the 2nd or third week of October, and it’s McCain V. Clinton, McCain will be elected in a landslide.
Some people are just very obviously not electable at all: Ron Paul, Joe Lieberman, Dennis Kucinich, etc. But once you get past the super-obvious, trying to second-guess the subtle ups and downs of electability gets very very difficult, and your chances of guessing correctly are low. Clinton, Obama, or Edwards could all win in November. Which of them is more likely to win? We will never know. I mean that – we will never know the answer to that question.
Though I should add that Kerry was a sort of middle ground: We could tell that he was going to be a weaker candidate, that we could do better… but he could also win. I don’t think any of our top three this year fall into that category.
<
p>It may be even more important to think carefully about how each candidate’s administration deals with attacks. The Republicans aren’t going to lay low after the election and will work very hard to convince the public that any Democratic administration is a failure, no matter what they do (it’s all about regaining power). Think about each of the last two Democratic presidents, who were perceived negatively by non-trivial percentages of the public, and the aftermath: Carter -> Reagen Revolution (despite Watergate still being a recent memory!). Clinton -> Congress flip in ’94 and GWB. How do we keep something worse from happening after the next Democratic president?
<
p>It has been mentioned a few times in this thread that Hillary has had everything thrown at her and yet she is still standing. It’s important to realize that the attacks did have an effect as now nearly half of the population isn’t very fond of her. That’s a lot of people who will be open to negative spin on a Clinton II administration.
<
p>With Obama and Edwards (moreso Obama), I’m worried about the Deval Patrick effect. When your campaign encourages people to reach high and the reality is that the president can only do so much, there’s going to be disappointment, severe in some cases. Again, this makes it easy for the attack machine to be effective.
Yes, yes, yes, how the Administration deals with it is very important. The problem is compounded by the media tilt. This is the media that sees McCain as the straight-talking maverickiest maverick ever and sees Hillary Clinton as an emotional unemotional technocrat with no experience who, in the face of hostile interpretations of her every move, acts surprisingly calculated. The comments about Carter are very timely after the Onion’s recent faux-Carter column pointed out just how good Carter was.
<
p>Another point about Hillary Clinton, though, is that the caricature of her is easy for her to refute. (“Amazing! We just saw Hillary. You’ll never believe it. She wasn’t an automaton! Can you believe it?”)
LightIris has made a point similar to that in your last paragraph, viz., that Presidents — and Governors — cannot really empower. So the hope here is false.
<
p>I’m not sure what to say about that. We do want progressive politics to be transformative. That certainly requires a higher level of citizen participation than we see now. How to get there? How to get there?
…between Clinton and Obama is this: Clinton has been tested for the past 16 years. She has had everything thrown at her but the kitchen sink, and yet, here she is still standing in 2008.
<
p>Obama…I don’t think the Republicans have even started on him yet, so he is still an unknown quantity in many ways.
<
p>I think both are fine candidates…I would support either one. But, I think Hillary is tested…Obama is not…four years ago, he was still in the Illinois legislature.
In the 2004 Illinois Senate race, Jack Ryan, running on a “pro-family” platform was discovered to be so “pro-family” that he forced his wife to share, er, entertainment with him at sex clubs.
<
p>He dropped out of the race — perhaps to spend more time with … .
<
p>Obama’s new opponent was Alan Keyes (who is so “pro-family” that he has cut off his daughter). Keyes, who had previously run for President and Senator from Maryland, is a master at pairing florid rhetoric with buffoonish positions.
<
p>So essentially, Obama has run against the best clowns the Republicans could find.
Right but Obama also beat several well financed candidates in the primary.
<
p>I find it funny that people demean him for just coming out of the state legislature but Illinois is a huge diverse state and he rose from complete obscurity in the State Senate to becoming Senator well known enough to run for President in 8 short years if that does not take a superior candidate I dont know what does. it took Clinton nearly 20 years as governor to get the national recognition he needed for comparison.
<
p>Also he ran in a competitive primary with an Arab sounding name at the height of the Iraq war fervor, as an anti war candidate I might add in a fairly purple state, and managed to beat four serious candidates one of them was Dan Hynes who was a very prominent son of a former and popular Governor and a statewide official. The other two were both incredibly wealthy self financed CEOs who bought a lot of early advertising and had high name recognition. Obama beat them all handidly.
<
p>Now again lukewarm GOP competition for sure in the general but Obama managed to carry districts in Southern Illinois that had not voted for Democrats for any statewide office since RECONSTRUCTION!. He carried several northside wards in Chicago in neighborhoods that had 30 years ago hurled rocks at Dr. King and just 15 years ago hurled racial epithets at the Chicagos first black Mayor. He carried them all handidly. He carried Denny Hasterts district, Henry Hydes district, and turnout remained at average rates for Republicans since it was a Presidential election meaning that a significant minority of Republican voters voted for Bush and Obama on the same ticket. I find that an amazing feat and one that should not be underestimated.
<
p>Hillary Clinton had two easy elections in New York handed to her, she faced token opposition in 2000 and 2006 as well so to attack Obama for facing Keynes is really ridiculous.
demean-to lower in dignity, honor, or standing; debase: He demeaned himself by accepting the bribe.
<
p>And people seem to attack him for “winning an easy election” when the numbers are incredibly impressive and arguably Mrs. Clinton won similarly easy general elections.
<
p>Also I might add another state legislator from Illinois became our greatest President.
This just plain sounds more emotional than fact-based.
<
p>I’m no particular fan of Senator Clinton. If we’re evaluating who is electable we must recognize, for example, that defeating Lazio was a bigger effort than defeating Keyes. That does not, in this world of Bayesian statistics, mean that Clinton is definitely, absolutely, 100% a better campaigner against Republicans than Obama. It just means that, given the evidence, there’s a stronger probability she is. There may be other evidence, too.
<
p>Certainly you are not suggesting with your indirect reference that Lincoln’s success suggests that the Illinois legislature has some sort of amazing proving ground for politicians. The evidence of 1952 and 1956 certainly showed that the Illinois governorship wasn’t.
that Hillary will rile the masses into an unprecedented fervor, causing her own defeat as well as that of many other Democrats. In a way, this is what I am hoping for.
<
p>On the other hand I may be deluded by my own visceral reaction to her, in which case the earlier she falls, the better.
<
p>
Obama’s campaign seems very impressive. If you have ever been in the thick of a Presidential campaign, and you were to hitch a ride with the candidate on his plane, there is something that becomes very clear, very quickly. It’s a question as to whether the candidate is competent or not. But I see Obama is very ambitious! Once I have read a book — “The Audacity of Hope” by Obama, it seems that his analysis of the world situation, from the US, to Indonesia, to Africa, to Iraq shows a much deeper understanding than would be evident from the debates: http://dealstudio.com/searchde… , I indeed think his ambition will make him big chance.