Clinton, Edwards and Obama and Biden are all electable

(Note to supporters of Kucinich, Dodd and Richardson: I have not included them in this for the simple fact that they have not gained the "traction" to be included in the top tier, for whatever reason. None of them have pulled a "Huckabee" and shown an unexpected ability to garner support. This post is aimed at the most likely nominees.)

When it comes down to the General Election, IMO, the individual candidate will be less important than the simple fact that s/he is a Democrat. Despite the depictions by the MSM of elections as a Celebrity Death Match, next year's election is going to be a larger referendum on the GOP, more than anything else.

IMO, the so-called "swing voters" are going to be less influenced by Obama's middle name, or Edwards haircuts or Hillary's "cackle" than they are by the more basic question of whether they want to put up with eight more years of GOP crap.

The real determining factor next year will be whether or not enough voters are sick and tired enough of Bush and the GOP CONservatives and the Right Wing Fundies to boot them from the White House and Congress send them into political Siberia.

Right now, it looks like the odds are in favor of that. Anything can happen between now and next November, so it is not a sure bet. And our side is certainly capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

But ultimately, the question will boil down to "GOP fatigue."

In simplistic terms, there is about 1/3 of the country who will vote for the GOP no-matter-what, 1/3 who will vote Democratic no-matter-what and 1/3 who are up for grabs. (That also includes on-the-fence-Republicans who have been so alienated by Bush and delay and all of the others associated with the GOP that they might choose any reasonable Democrat as an alternative.)

At this point, most of those changable votes would most likely say "No" to the GOP. And the fact that the economy is on a downward trajectory will also cause more voters to go for Democratic change over the incumbent GOP.

So what's really going to be important (both in terms of the election and where people want the country to go) is that the Democratic candidate and the party as a whole, make a clear and positive case for change from Bush the GOP. Any of the most likely nominees can make that case. They are all articulate, have proven that they can fight and all are within the mainstream.

Yes there are differences, and that's what we fight over here. Personally I prefer Edward's progressive populist message, and I like him as a candidate and possible president. But I also believe that Clinton, Obama or Biden (a longshot but moving up) would be equally credible as candidates in the general election.

Yes, they all have some negative factors and baggage about them. Yes the GOP will attempt to slime any of them who is the nominee. The mud may be customized to the individual, but all will get mud tossed at them.

But they all have one thing in common. They are Democrats, and that is going to be the bottom line next year in terms of "electability."

The primaries is the time Democrats and liberal/progressive independents fight and hash out among ourselves what we want the nominee to represent and stand for. And what elements of the Democratic Party we believes should be in the leadership. That's the purpose of the process.

But, IMO, as the primaries head into the home stretch, this is the time to focus on the messages and proposals and who the final field represents, rather than what personal qualities or negatives they might have in terms of "electability." They all are going to be equally "electable" or "unelectable" because the forces at work next year are bigger than celebrity and personalized politics.

Obama and Edwards are doing better than her against every GOP candidate. We better hope McCain isn't the nominee, because he's doing really well against her.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

The candidates are supposed to be able to convince voters that they are the right choice. Any candidate can look relatively good or bad months before the election, but do they have the means to change peoples mind? Edwards has tied his own hands with the matching funds. As far as I am concerned, all the other top tier fundraisers at least have the means to get their message out. How well each of them do that is up to them.

according to recent polls. It is not a wish or campaign spin.

It simply isn't true what Hillary supporters say...that she is most likely to beat the GOP. The stats don't support that statement.

I wish he were, but it's just not true. There is virtually no chance of Biden getting the nomination. Even if he did, America has made it quite clear: We do not elect as President long-term liberal senators from the northeast.

Biden knows this. He isn't running for President, really. He's running for something else....Sec. of State, maybe?

I love Biden. Don't get me wrong. I'd vote for him as President in a heartbeat. But America has made its position on this quite clear in the last 80 years. Jack Kennedy was an exception, and that was because his father fixed it...even then, he won by only a hair's breadth. But then, he wasn't long-term senator. Of course there was FDR, but I don't think he was a long-term senator, either. Being a long-term senator gives just too much ammunition to shoot a candidate down with.

Most likely to be elected are governors or short-term congress people.

or top tier candidates. This will be a historical election and I don't think past trends will prevail.

NEW YORK, Dec. 17, 2003

CHOICE FOR DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE
(Democratic primary voters)

Now
Howard Dean
23%
Wesley Clark
10%
Joe Lieberman
10%
Richard Gephardt
6%
Al Sharpton
5%
John Kerry
4%
John Edwards
2%
Carol Moseley-Braun
1%

I'm not being snarky... I really do want to know what you think this does for Hillary's chances..or do you feel because she'd be the first woman elected that changes everything?

What's more, they're before the MSM and the repukes have gotten hold of either of them in a big way. If you're so big on the polls showing that Edwards and Obama are more electable, do you also take as gospel the polls that show Clinton as the prohibitive favorite? The fact is that national polls are not predictive at this point.

But I still say Clinton supporters are also engaging in dubious speculation when they claim that she has the best chance at beating the GOP, not statistical fact. Right now she looks the worst against the GOP. Obama is very well known at this point and he is maintaining a solid lead against most of the R's (except Guiliani but I don't think he'll be around too much longer). Edwards is doing even better.

As for the national polls where Clinton leads, I believe them. The Clintons are very popular with Democratic voters and that's tough for any of their opponents to overcome. However, if Obama or Edwards or one of the others makes a good showing in the early primary states, that could change.

You can have the best platform out there, but if you can't get it in peoples ears, it doesn't matter. And if you can't fight attacks from your opponent, your perfect platform will look like crap to a lot of potential voters.

With the backing of the Democratic Party infrastructure, he could probably do a lot to compensate for that.

The intricacies of the mechanics of that get a bit too convoluted for me to figure out.

But in general terms, it seems to me that if the Democratic Party machinery is working to spread a basic "vote Democratic" message and is setting up the infrastructure, it will benefit candidates at all levels.

I'm not sure if we should expect an advantage there. Some say that the RNCC doesn't have as much money right now, but will that still be the case in July? It seems no matter which way we turn with this, we're hoping that some white knight will appear to bail him out.

The MSM practically ignored him, but he is consistently #3 in just about any poll. Both Clinton and Obama have way over spent him, and have gotten the most press. He seems to know what he is doing.

zalinda

NO other candidate in here can offer this.
He has the unquestioned respect of his Senate colleagues, both Dems and Republicans.
If Bush signs his Iraq war plan, which is now on his table after passing the house. There is no chance of Republicans winning against him.
Can we not see how strong a presidency a Biden presidency will be?

My point was that the top four are all electable

electability is so largely a given that any decent Dem could win. So large that comparative margins are unimportant. People would tend to argue with the general proposition but would like to get to the logic of marginal differences like coattail or drag, reviving the GOP base or discouraging it or offering something "new' they can live with, the possibility of defeat by not countering the status quo in any critical field or some or offering to revolutionize away all the garbage and not ignore fraud and lies. There are marked differences, not just in ephemeral polls in how the candidates would rank in any of these "insignificant" things- and how they are received. Some of the negatives accruing are not going away, not even as they had with Kerry until the GOP machine kicked in after the Convention. Insofar as these things surrender anything of what on paper looks to be a sure thing in 2008, it is not something we should be enthused with- much less tolerate. In any event, there are no delegates to be awarded here on DU. Our judgement will not sway elections for this contest at least.

If in anyone's judgment, notably by fans of candidates markedly at odds or bitter toward the winner, this logical faith is not something they agree with, the reticence will carry over into the election and unfortunately to any blame beyond or lack of support for the dem president. That is important to look at as part of the picture.

I was trying to stress a more important sort of logic- presuming as this post does- that the Dems united will win in 2008. One overriding thing for nearly ALL of us here is to advance a progressive agenda and real answers to our present crises. Whether we have a candidate that plans on burying us or is completely sympathetic means NOTHING unless we show our clout and let it be felt. Whatever any other groups or volunteers do, the progressives would do best at something they have NOT done to date. Unite enthusiastically to campaign for Dems attaching the strings that are physical. Our presence, our purpose, our dough, our lobbying for the future at the polls. Despite the fine quality and sanity(relative to the religious right) if we cannot unite and cannot demonstrate 100% our commitment in the election, we will have sent ANY candidate a message that we do not matter, will only help if the litmus paper is unspotted pure, and are by all real measure irrelevant to politics. Who is going to reform things to make it easier for us? No one unless we raise our own banner. All the separate heroes and advocacy groups that have done fine work will have diminished and ever threatened results if we can't do one simple selfish thing. Stop our bickering, yes face reality, but campaign like monsters for Democrats.

So that everyone knows we are there. Knows why we act as one. Knows what vision binds us to the party.
We can't help much except to divide OURSELVES. We are not going to defeat big media and win huge chunks of the electorate. In the primaries the people can make whatever choice they can and then we must work with that. As a microcosm we understand better than most the frailties of leaders, of the people, of the system- but have a huge blind spot in regard to ourselves. We must dive into the possible at last, and in doing so, lead, be there, and not RUIN it all then with divisions and bickering that serve no one but the GOP.

When you go into the phone banks or whatever, you resist the urge to weigh in on Nominee X, gushing or lamenting, and say to one and all: I am here for the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. i am here for a grass roots agenda. Then spell it out to all the other volunteers. People will be drawn to common purpose and not just as leader groupies bound for a single contest.

What this poster along with others like Will Pitt are trying to do is get us together on this, to keep us from degenerating to grouchy bystanders of defeat or victory. I am trying to get people to wake people up to WHY we have DU in the first place and cling precariously to the work in progress(or regress at times) that is this party. The hope and the ideas and the specific humanity far transcends anything or anyone and we should act like it where it counts. For the the truth. For the future. For an end to the BS. When we can show we can set aside the snark and the lark, we can stop throwing stones in our shiny glass house and make a difference, not just for Nominee X, but for everything. And MAKE them know it. And get the foot in where it cannot be removed, at ground level in the war, not election, of our generation. it is far bigger than Hillary, Edwards, DK, Biden, Obama etc. etc. etc. After the primaries- where the people, without much of our united influence to date to effect anything except on a divided individual basis, will choose- is our last chance to do what we must do for our country. Get together for an agenda and for leaders that can start bringing it about because they know they can rely on our support.

THAT unfortunately is not inevitable. A Democratic party that wins without united, undiminished progressive clout ill have gone on onto a RW spun trail without its soul.

My post was neither assuming that Democrats will win, nor that we should ignore the larger issues of governance.

You went a step further than I did, but it is not contradictory to my assumption at all.

My own opinion is -- and always has been -- that it is possible to unite behind an agenda that is liberal/progressive AND Mainstream and electable.

Liberal and progressive ARE Mainstream and within the center of the spectrum. The sooner the Democratic Party reflects that and runs on it and governs on it, the better.

The point of my post was that the necessity and ability to focus on that level now -- when it really matters -- is weakened and diluted by concerns of the personal aspects of the candidates.

I think it was trying to help you knock some heads together and face up to what is our real, personal challenge regardless of what position they take on the point of electability etc. You can't convince the people who have that problem or fear. It would help keep threads together on a lot of issues to remember what WE are trying to achieve, not what seems easy to tear down. At some point it is more than hope and more than the certainty of success. It is doing what is right together.

Why just cross your fingers and "Hope" the GOP will run a polite and fair campaign?

Stack up their variouis positives and negative, and they come out about even, in terms of electability, IMO.

As I noted in my OP, I believe the real issue in this campaign will be a referendum on the two parties, regardless of the nominee.

Edwards won't have a chance. He's already being proven to be a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry was. He would take a beating in the General Election.

Obama won't fare much better than Edwards. He's been too hypocritical in the Primaries. If Dennis Kucinich can paste him for that, imagine what the other side will do to him. Add to that his obvious lack of experience and it would only result in four more years of a repuke for president.

Hillary and Biden are both battle tested and way more electable. Trouble is, Biden won't make it through the primaries even though he'd be way more electable in the general election than Obama or Edwards would.

is preferable to someone who still refuses to admit that mistake, and yet still claims to be on the side of withdrawal. That's not flip flopping, it's wiggling endlessly.

In terms of electability, Edwards's "flip flop" reflects what the majority of the country has done.

I don't see Obama as any more hypocritical than Hillary either. Clinton started out as the "let's all be friends" candidate, but then turned mean when it didn;t look like she was going to automatically get her way.

But such points are less important than the larger fact (in my opinion, of course), which is that the=is time around, the individual is going to be less important than what the public perceives as the preferable between the GOP and the Democratic parties.

have a more consistant record than Edwards, and that could hurt him, so I agree with your assessment..
Obama..I don't know, I'll have to think about that.

I think if Biden got a bump in Iowa, he would get enough traction to break through in the rest of the primary season.

Only 2 Democratic Senators with no executive experience have EVER made it to the White House.

1960 - Kennedy was in the Senate and very narrowly got into office.

1852- Franklin Pierce was an ex-Senator (like Edwards). Served one term.


Senators can easily be beaten.

this is not the run of the mill election. If it were, you might be right. But in this election, all bets are off. I find it funny to suggest that a senator can't win an election in a time when a woman, black man, and a hispanic are all running. Seems kind of like a moot point whether or not a senator can win, if you ask me.

I'd say it's wide open.

corona - did you really have to use that phrase?

:rofl:

AHHHh...I never even thought of that!! Thanks for poking me with that stick, LOL...

I've been looking for the hidden pun or something there, and it eludes me. Maybe my sense of humor radar is set on low at the moment.

Can you explain for us thickheads?

History says that EDWARDS is the only of the 3 who is 'electable' i.e. there has never been a woman nor a black male president.

...are just as electable if not more electable than Clinton and Obama. And I prefer Obama and Edwards. The second tier have the gravitas, experience, and highest general election electability, but even their collective ability to catch fire in the nomination race is like a soggy pile of wood.

Obama's my first choice, but I'll work to elect Edwards if he's the candidate.