Gene Lyons believes party may suffer from an Obama candidacy

snip

If nominated, Obama can’t possibly defeat Sen. John McCain without bringing Clinton voters to him. Recently, however, I’ve been hearing from many passionate Democrats who say they can’t and won’t vote for him in November, so I asked a few to explain why.

Mine is no scientific survey. Ranging from 26 to 86, my correspondents live in seven states, North, South and Midwest. They don’t know each other personally. None participates in politics except on a local, volunteer basis. I chose them because they’re unusually articulate.

Most think Obama a sure loser in the George McGovern, Michael Dukakis tradition. They believe he’s totally unqualified.

snip

http://moose-and-squirrel.com/gene/gene.html

that Obama can beat McCain better than Hillary can.

270 required to win

May 22
Electoral Votes: Obama 242 McCain 285 Ties 11

Electoral Votes: Clinton 310 McCain 211 Ties 17

http://www.electoral-vote.com/


Other electoral vote polls show the same outcome. When you say "polls already show" you must be referring to national popularity polls, which of course have no or little relevance in an electoral vote system as our US Constitution presently requires.

The Obama campaign has a Herculean task before them, as opposed to 'Obama already beating McCain'.

It's the electoral college that makes Lyons' point reasonable.

May 14, 2008
Poll shows both Clinton and Obama beating McCain
Posted: 12:55 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

McCain trails both Democrats in a new poll.

(CNN) — While exit polls from the West Virginia primary seemed to suggest the party is deeply divided between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new poll out Wednesday suggests either candidate would easily beat Republican John McCain in the fall.

According to a new Quinnipiac University poll, both Democratic candidates beat McCain by a gap well outside the margin of error. Obama beats McCain by 7 points in the poll, 47 percent to 40 percent, while Hillary Clinton bests the Arizona senator by 5 points, 46 percent to 41 percent.

The poll carries a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 points and was conducted from May 8-12.

An electoral vote poll must project each state individually and total the results. The preferred analysis would use several different polls to make the projections, as they do at the link I cited.

This one I posted favors Clinton over Obama vs McCain.

The only other one I've found also favors Clinton.

I've asked for alternate polls here at DU and elsewhere and so far nobody cites any.

Obviously, since the President is elected by the electoral college, an electoral vote poll is more useful that a national popularity poll, of which there are oodles.

May 23
Electoral Votes: Clinton 315 McCain 206 Ties 17
Electoral Votes: Obama 242 McCain 272 Ties 24

270 - cigar

:dem:

is the comparison between the primary outcome and the electoral college outcome. This is serious apple/orange problem.
If we want to use the primaries to make electoral college voodoo predictions, the only thing we can really say is that
democrats would overwhelmingly over-vote the republicans.
Of course, that's nonsense.

I actually voted for these moribund candidates and there was nothing inspiring nor intereesting about them whatsoever. In fact if we had gone out and purposefully found two of the most boring, non-charismatic candidates availible to run for pres, these two would have been on the top of the list.

I only voted for them because of the D after their name, and I was so burned out after voting for "d"'s that didn't win, and when they won DID NOTHING back in the day. I quit voting for over a decade and when I came back registered as Indy.

Obama is nothing like them. Mondale or Dukakis could never address 75,000 people in Portland. Even if he paid them. Sad, but true.

How many people were there to hear the Decemberists?

I haven't heard any of their music and don't really care. If it finds me fine, if not, whatever.

with Mondale and Dukakis and an unknown band? I'm missing some logic here.

Decemberists is a locally well-known and popular band, with some national following.

Obama appeared before a crowd of 75k. This was trumpeted nationwide, and reinforced his street cred as a rock star. Insanely popular, attracting such a crowd on his own.

But a local band, well-known and popular, was playing for free.

How many of the 75k would have gone to see Obama in a solo act?

How many of the 75k would have gone to see the Decemberists in a solo act?

Given those questions, how much of the 75k attendance can we ascribe entirely or primarily to Obama, as the national media did, entirely omitting any reference to the opening act?

I am familiar with the band and know how huge of a following they have in Portland.

m&s

interesting

I thought they were a bunch of cultists, praising their messiah. Good to know those people all left after hearing The "Decemberists" perform I actually saw it streaming from the local news channel. They didn't mention it either. What's wrong with those people? The local news surely must have known this was a ruse!! Have you contacted them yet?

:eyes:

They lost because they were as exciting as wet newspaper. They're both good men who knew their stuff, but they could not connect even with their fans.

I mean, what's it say about a candidate when an 75 year old man can seem more dynamic than them?

told a good story with exceptional elocutionary skills, backed by a beautifully staged campaign and lotsa'money. How could he possibly lose. Unfortunatly, he gathered ambitious untrustworthy people to direct his show.
This country has paid the price because the demise of rules and regulations have created feathered nests for the privileged while the lower castes have been left out to dry.

True, as with Dukakis, Fritz Mondale was low key, little name recognition. His campaign was tacky while Ronald Reagan was pure Hollywood glitz; lots of money poured into his campaign. People simply don't really bother to know the qualifications of their candidates and appear not to give a damn either as long as they can 'inspire'and deliver lofty rhetoric, have appealing looks, good haircuts etc.
Harry Truman, one of our better presidents, would never have been elected if he hadn't inherited the presidency through the death of FDR. He gained a second presidency because he proved he could do a good job. Harry Truman was a droney speaker and looked like a Mr. Peeper.

Shuffle on to Buffalo Kerry. Hmmm looking back and assessing this whole D situation I must note that in the past 40 years-not since Kennedy- have we had any but dud Dems in or running for the office WITH the clear exception of Pres Clinton. He was an excellent president. Yes. That is a fact. Erasure and denial, I will not abide by. I will not bring down a successful man just to raise up my candidate. But I see DU filled with people so willing to throw his shining jewel of 8 years - that precious glimmer amidst a pathetic puddle that has become DNC legacy-- UNDER THE BUS. UNDER THE BUS!!! Shameful. Shameful. Shameful. Doesn't sound like what the DNC should be. Ripping apart the past and spitting on it in the name of "progressive". Pathetic. Progressive is about change not confrontation and hate. Progressive is about acceptance not about alienation. Clinton was a success despite the repugs plots against him. And some would throw that fact away. nastiness. You dont have to support the Clinton2008 but dont disgrace, erase and spin the past. He and his wife, the Senator, were made of tough stuff then and are now. I am grateful for their work, despite and against the odds and the repug/rove machine.

Obama08

on a daily basis. Pathetic.

a man whom a majority of the voters would like to see in prison.

Curious

make no mistake about it.

that Gene's "friends" can make the same arguments as Geraldine Ferraro
without sounding as racist, sexist, or mired in the politics of the past.

Gene/friends/Clintonites of the highest order, rely on their live's
experience to make political calculations. they truly believe that
you must fight fire with fire, without ever considering that there
might be a better way. to fight fire with water.

from '68 to '04, the GOP won*(2000)7 of 10 general elections
from '32 to '64, the DEMs won*(1960)7 of 9
from 1892 to '28, the GOP won 7 of 10

if the cycles hold true, 2008 is the turning tide once again
i think they/she realize(s) this, hence the continued "fight" for
the nomination for what should be the easiest DEM victory since 1932.
but they/she failed to anticipate the nature of the change/tide
and did not have the foresight to get ahead of it on particular
issues (especially the Iraq War)

the times/tides have changed, and they missed the boat
and they're not happy about it.

where Clinton creams McCain and Obama loses. But it's too late for that and few are listening, even fewer on this list. It will be bad for the party, it will be bad for the next African-American candidate, it will be tragic for the country but the proverbial train has already left the station. We have made our equally proverbial bed...

and i hear the same things over & over & over again in my own community (Las Cruces, NM). the democratic party is dead to a lot of their former supporters because they were abandoned in favor of neo-liberals. the dem party will never get its base back again. watch for the rise of the independent party.

The longer she stays in this campaign and threatens to go to the convention, the more democrats start to hate her. She will bring out the rr in droves to vote against her, which will hurt candidates down ticket. This is why the republicans want her to run so badly.

If she steals the nomination, she will destroy the party. She will also destroy her political career. She will go down in history as the person who destroyed a sure thing.

McCain is a weak candidate. When he and Obama debate - Obama will wipe the floor with the guy.

Lyons is parroting Joe Scab-burro talking points. This is the way the Republicans want to frame Obama. Lyons is an Arkansan who has always supported Clinton. He is repeating one of her talking points to make it possible for her to stay in this race.

This is a lame comparison to me, but one, no doubt, that the Obama campaign will have to deal with. The most effective way to deal with it is to draw on presidents and leaders from the 1960s who more accurately represent what Obama's campaign is about for many ppl.

and very clever staging. This will be the time for Obama to use Hollywood glitz much like Reagans campaign. Lots of music, American Idol moves and let the good times roll. That is where the new generation of voters are. Coupled with die hard Dems & Dem politicians, Obama has a good chance. I'm not being facetious, but that is what sells. I hope it rubs off on the Republican congress, time to take a hike out of Congress as well. McCain will have the same old voting crowd supporting him; the America right or wrong flag wavers, the 'don't make waves' bunch. McCain will have corporate money behind him less they lose what they have gained through deregulation, tax breaks and having the upper hand. Since they have been willing to put up with the puppet in the WH, they would be willing to put up with another puppet as long as they call the shots.

He totally ignores the FACT that if Hillary was the better candidate, she would be wiping the floor with Obama. Hillary started the Dem Primary campaign with EVERY Advantage -- name recogniztion, money, a primary calendar that favors Establishment candidates like her, and popularity within the Dem Party. Her high negatives are mostly from non-Democrats, the ones you need to win in the general election.

However, fortune slipped from her grasp. Like with her 2002 IWR vote, she misjudged the American people and the times we live in. Instead of running a campaign on building a better future, she ran one on the nostalgia for the 1990 Clinton Admin. She also banked on Democratic primary and caucus voters blind love for Bill to get her through. Yes, she wanted to ride her husband's coattalis, or perceived coattails to the Dem Prez nomination. What she was blind to was that many Democrats and Independents who vote in Dem Primaries were not as enamored of Bill as she thought we were. Also many remembered her vote for IWR and her unwillingness to admit a mistake.

Lyons calls Obama arrogant. He does have some of it, but it is the Clintons, who suffer from hubris, that false sense of pride that leads to tragic endings. And by the way she ran her campaign, it is obvious that Hillary, not Obama, would have been a disastorous Dem Presidential candidate and most likely losing to McCain. And if she manged to eke out a victory against McCain, Hillary would be the one-term wonder.

n/t

alot more than you do.

Hillary, his wife would work for Hillary because both of them worked on the Ark Children's Board of Directors and Hillary was nice to his wife when she had cancer. (Read about here in Arkansas, where Bill and Hillary have done us absolutely no favors, whatsoever. Oooh, we out perform Mississippi...that's all they've done for us.)