Polarization and Different bases: A non-trivial problem that cannot be wished away

To understand the current situation, one must discard the media/internet narrative that Hillary is 100% polarizing and unlikeable while Obama is 100% likable and unifying.

Obama is indeed charming and Hillary is indeed nasty, but that's not the real measure of polarization. In the real world BOTH candidates are polarizing, and BOTH are disliked by broad segments of the potential Democratic electorate. This is a non-trivial problem that cannot be wished away.

Both candidates lose a big chunk of potential Democratic voters to John McCain. Each loses a different, but similarly sized chunk. I do not offer a solution. I merely encourage everyone to incorporate this counter-intuitive reality into our analysis of the current situation.

(Since our posts are limited now, I want to use this space to also note a perverse fact that may be lost on most readers who are not statisticians, gamblers or sports fans: many or most of the lost Clinton voters count double. A potential Dem voter who stays home or votes for Nader loses us one Dem vote. A potential Dem voter who votes for McCain costs one Dem vote AND adds one McCain vote.)

_________________________

Clinton is viewed favorably by 73% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters. However, that figure includes only 55% of Obama voters.

Obama is viewed favorably by 69% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, a figure that includes only 43% of Clinton supporters.

The General Election remains essentially tied. McCain leads Obama 45% to 44% while Clinton leads McCain 46% to 45%. Both single-point leads are statistically insignificant. In each match-up, McCain benefits from a significant number of voters who preferred the other candidate in the Democratic Primary.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

we didn't need a historic election this year.
We needed Al Gore.

So said Will Rogers. Good to see not a thing has changed in almost a century huh? Leave it to us to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

How many times did you read / hear, "Well, I liked so-and-so, but they can't win, so I voted for that one instead."

We get what we deserve.

The Iraq war will still be raging and the country will be in a deep recession. However, in the post 9/11 fundie paranoid world we live in who knows?

...the electorate is sick and tired of the failed 'war forever' and the kleptomaniacal economic policies of the Bush administration that McCain promises to uphold. In short, McCain is toast, no matter who the democrats run against him.

All the democrats have to do is run http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk">this video ad nauseum, beginning in October.

You're right to some extent about BO perceived likability and HRCs polarizing character, but I have a 25 year old nephew from VA going to law school in Ms. He has seen Obama
speak 4 times. Washington, VA, and MS. His remark to his grandmother last friday night was. The more I see Obama the less I like him. He saw a Clinton Speech last Thursday night and liked her message. There are likable things about both.

Obama pushes away people when he arrogantly says his supporters will not support hers but hers will him. That isn't unifying either.
His likability rating is falling.

What will it take to unify this party?

The first time I saw his Two Americas speech I was blown away.

By the third time I saw it I was irritated and left wanting.

You can't expect Edwards to come up with a new speech for each stop, can you?

Can you explain further (and I'm being sincere; not trying to start a war) how you predict that both Obama and Clinton will lose a similarly-sized chunk to McCain? The reason I ask is that from what I've either heard, read, or inferred on my own, the prediction is that Hillary loses a bigger "chunk" to McCain owing to her polarizing image whereas Obama - while losing a chunk - doesn't lose as much because he's not quite as polarizing to those who would considering either voting for him or McCain.

And also, wouldn't a more telling statistic (realizing that you were quoting Rasmussen ... just asking here) be to show how much of Hillary and Obama's supporters were considering or open to voting for McCain? In my mind - admitting I'm probably wrong - that'd seem to tell how much might get siphoned off.

His charm is wearing thin and he is becoming less likeable. Even among young voters. Some of his appeal is wearing thin so I don't think anyone can predict.

The large recent Pew study confirmed this, along with other polling. Hillary gets 90% of Dems. Obama gets only 80% of Dems, but picks up enough indys and republicans to almost exactly balance. That's why the two can poll the same in head-to-head match-ups with McCain despite having demographically different bases.

It is too glib to simply ascribe the effect to racism. A lot of older white blue-collar Dems have been voting for Republican presidents for years, while voting for Dems in congress and state positions. And Obama vs. McCain provides the Reagan Dems with an unusually stark choice... a familiar white military guy perceived as a moderate versus an inexperienced black man perceived as a liberal.

Those are the Reagan Democrats. A lot of stuff people have taken as Hillary being a "war-monger" is actually the high price of winning the Reagan Dems back.

Obama does poorly with Reagan Democrats, but does very well with Reagan independents.

:eyes:

Selecting "good polls" and "bad polls" to buttress ones chosen psychologically comforting narrative is one of the silliest things about DU, and politics in general.

That is also one of the points of the OP.

but there is one they do on MSNBC that's an average of ALL the polls.. That one's more realistic..but in the final analysis, the only poll that matters is on election day..

Hillary turns registered Rs into likely Rs and likely Rs into actual R voters.

Barack turns unregistered Dems into registered Dem voters, registered Dems into likely voters, and likely voters into actual Democratic votes.

In TX, more Obama supporters did NOT vote downticket than Clinton supporters. The O voters were there for one reason: not party, not tradition, only Barack.

But you seem to be fair in your posts so I actually accept the point to your posts. That being said, what exactly is the idea behind your post? Are you saying either Obama or Hillary will lose some of the voting block of the other candidate that doesn't become the nominee and that voting block will vote for McCain or Nader? And if that's what your saying then what are the chances of a democratic victory in november?

I don't like either candidate much at this point, but I do believe Hillary has a slightly better chance in the GE.

The point of the OP is that we are in a more perilous situation than most Obama supporters seem to realize. They have great faith that Hillary would lose Obama voters but that their Obama win Hillary voters.

In reality, there's no reason to think that.

Both candidate will lose big chunks of potential anti-Republican votes.

My personal preferred solution is Clinton/Obama, which would garner the highest vote total. But there's no real clear way to get to that point.

Obama/Clinton would be a disastrous ticket. I like Hillary okay, by I can admit that she would cost votes in the VP slot, not gain them.

It's a bad situation that requires a lot of reasoned, cautious examination by national Dems, and nothing the two campaigns say is impartial. We need to look at the big picture, not be caught up in propaganda narratives of one side or the other.

For instance... Hillary's base is Reagan Democrats. Obama is not winning Reagan Dems at all. Reagan Dems were blue-collar northern and midwestern whites... a little racist, and big on "tough" national security. Those voters go for Hillary over McCain and McCain over Obama.

That doesn't mean Hillary is necessarily a stronger candidate. It is just something that all of us need to understand. (I have read a lot of stuff about how Obama will win Reagan Democrats when he is actually likelier to win moderate Republicans than Reagan Dems. Reagan Dems are clannish lower income whites.)

And to be honest, I blame Clinton.

I don't blame her for continuing to campaign. But I do blame here for doing everything possible to drive up Obama's negatives, and doing everything possible to alienate his supporters.

So if she wins, IMO, she will have a harder battle to keep Democrats in the fold than Obama would. Plus, Obama would bring in more independents and young people.

It's about certain democrats refusing to give up power concerning the party. They will fight with any means possible with no concern about the future. It's a good ol power struggle with a very uncertain future.

I'll leave it at that. I can't add any more to what you've outlined so well.