Electability in November? (Hillary's arguments are stupid)

There has been much discussion in the 2008 presidential campaign especially as it relates to the Democratic nomination process. And there seems to be a concerted effort by the Clinton campaign to point out weakness in the Obama effort related to November electability.

Let's take a look at some insights gleamed from the last 20 years of elections.

One argument being made is that there is a relationship between primary win in states and ability to win those states in the Fall.

For example, the Clinton campaign likes to point out they won Ohio and Obama lost it, and that this bodes badly for his chances of winning that state in the Fall. The Obama campaign points out wins in red states in the primary process trying to prove their strength.

To put it bluntly, there is no relationship between primary success in any given state and November success in those states.

The big reason is that, even with record turnouts in the primaries, only a small segment of the public goes to vote in the nomination process.

It looks like about 30 million people will vote in the Democratic nomination process; in November more than 130 million will vote!!! A much different electorate at stake.

And I can recall in the 2000 presidential campaign, George Bush won Iowa in the primary, then lost it in November. He lost New Hampshire by more than 17 points in the primary, but then carried it in the general election providing his electoral margin of victory.

There are many many similar examples of this in the last 20 years.

Mark Penn, Clinton's strategist this year and a major adviser for former President Clinton in the 1990s, and many other Clinton campaign folks, have stated many times recently that superdelegates (as well as Obama pledged delegates) should take into account electability in November in deciding who should be the nominee, and that Obama is the weakest candidate.

First, nearly every public poll out in last two weeks show Clinton and Obama with equal strength against McCain.

This is the case even after two very bad weeks of press for Obama. My guess is after a few weeks of favorable coverage, Obama will again be at an advantage over Clinton looking towards November.

Second, it is ironic the Clinton folks are raising this argument against Obama about electability.

They might recall that as Bill Clinton was headed towards winning the nomination in 1992, his electability in the fall was seriously in doubt. He was more than 15 points behind President Bush in May and June of that year, and in many polls he was in third place behind Ross Perot and President Bush!!!

And we know the end result of that campaign was Bill Clinton taking the oath of office in January 1993.

When talking about electability we should all keep in mind that each campaign will try to use arguments to show they are stronger, and that today’s polls are only a barometer of today.

Electability, like momentum, can be as fleeting a concept, as the deciding moments every week in this process.

This is still Obama’s race to lose at this point.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/matthewdowd/2008/03/electability-in.html

figure that out?

The superdelegates will likely then choose Clinton. Obama would only have one card to play under that scenario...

1) Nice. What the Bushbot didn't mention is Obama once did 9-10 points better than Clinton against McCain until his electability began to decline as he suffered a few light punches. Only a blind or naive person would think someone "new" being tied in general election polls with someone who has been attacked for 16 years is an achievement.

2) Good one. That is because Bush, an incumbent president, had very high approval ratings at the time. In case Dowd, who worked for the current incumbent, didn't notice McCain is not in the Whie House.

3) It isn't about primary success but general election polling and who can keep the party together. Obama would lose more Democrats than even Dukakis by approaching Mondale level numbers. He has the potential to fracture the party long-term, something a rethug like Dowd surely would be delighted to see.

Why was Clinton behind in the polls in the summer? Isn't your argumetn that the "new" candidate always does better in the beginning? It didn't happen that way in 1992 did it?

Obama suffered through very bad weeks of coverage and is still even with Hillary. One would think he would be 5-10 behind Hillary given the hysteria over the tapes.

And you have no idea whether or not those Democrats who say they will vote for McCain actually do vote for McCain by the tie November comes. The election is 7 months away. The way you try and argue that polls right now matter so much, and the trend right now will be the same trend months from now, is quite amusing.

Obama should be doing much better against the rethugs at this point than she is, like he once did. Instead he actually does slightly worse even though his negatives have a long way to go.

1992 was against an incumbent president. Bush has sky high approval ratings at the time so obviously any Dem would do poorly against him. Why do you think none of the top-tier Democrats of the time even bothered to run in 1992? They expected Bush to easily win and then they would run in 1996. It wasn't Clinton who improved. It was Bush who declined and Clinton was the natural beneficiary. What about 1976, 1988, 2000, and 2004? You cherry picked one year with an incumbent president whose popularity tanked that year (Ford was an incumbent but had barely more than a year in office when 1976 polling, which showed Carter, the "new" candidate in a change year, leading by 35).

That would be true if the campaign and Obama and Clinton's existence began last month. Clinton has suffered through 16 years of bad coverage yet she does better against McCain than someone who has suffered less than 16 days of bad coverage. The superdelegates aren't blind and this will surely factor into their thinking. Obama seems to have a glassjaw. If a few weeks hurt him so bad, how much will non-stop attacks from the rethugs hurt him? The rethugs have yet to touch him.

That is what the Obama gambit is based on: "hope." Just "hope" everything will work it. Never mind he bleeds away more Democratic support than any Democratic nominee since Mondale. Let's "hope" the party, once torn apart, can be stitched together. Let's "hope" indies remain slightly with Obama. Let's "hope" Obama is immune to the rethug attack machine. And so on.

Obamites keep ignoring a simple fact. They act as if Obama has just been going down for a few weeks. In reality he has been going down for months.

One strategist put it well when he said:
"She is like a blue-chip company stock price," one strategist said. "Everything is known, and it's all built into the price. So if she's beating McCain now, there's a good degree of certainty she can beat him in the fall."

"She is like a blue-chip company stock price," one strategist said. "Everything is known, and it's all built into the price. So if she's beating McCain now, there's a good degree of certainty she can beat him in the fall."

Gees....there certainly seems to be a MASSIVE dose of DENIAL going on for anyone to suppose that Hillary would not be in for a tremendous amount of Swift Boating.

The other side is keeping its powder dry.

I have watched Obama deal with the Wright thing. He did masterfully. As good as one would expect from any candidate.

When I see the Clinton campaign unfold, and watch Hillary, I find it hard to have much confidence that she would handle the inevitable swift boating even close to how well Obama has shown already.

She is so vulnerable to attack. And her supporters are afraid to even see it!

You think Kerry was vulnerable on the flip flop meme? Kerry was not nearly the flip-flopper or triangulator as Hillary.

You think McCain should be taken to task for his support of Iraq? Hillary can't do that! It's not that McCain will attack her for Iraq, it is that with Hillary we have the lost opportunity to make an issue of a war that the majority of Americans oppose.

I just don't see Hillary as a skilled campaigner. SHe has the charisma of a rock that went into the lake when it was supposed to bounce on the surface. Hey...look at this....thud....

If Obama was such a poor campaigner and Hillary so good....why is she losing?

If Hillary is so good, why doesn't she tell us why instead of merely trying to bash Obama?

Why are bigots like Geraldine Ferarro able to get a microphone in front of them instead of being ignored like the pariah she is? Farrakan is ignored, so should Geraldine be. It isn't as if Geraldine said anything intelligent....

I'm sorry, but when a Democratic candidate sends low-life racist skum bags to race bait....it is time to consider... from a moral standpoint whether that candidate can be backed at all. Where have we gone when someone who could do THAT could be considered a Democrat, let alone nominated as the party's leader? If you believe in moral terpitude, I guess that makes sense.

Bill Clinton was new to many Americans and he was doing worse than the incumbent, Bush, and ROSS PEROT in some polls. Why was he close to Perot in some polls? But he came back, because POLLS CHANGE AND PEOPLE CHANGE. Why won't you acknowledge that? Oh, I know, you hate Obama and have delluded yourself into believing what happens in March and April will be the same thing that happens in September, October.

Bush was well liked and he started going down. What makes you think McCain won't go down by November? I can guarantee you he will. Bookmark it if you don't believe me, but McCain will meltdown or his candidacy will not be what it is now in October. I seriously guarantee it.

What you are also missing is, I hate to admit it, but the media in the GE will be biased toward Obama more than even the primaries . The not so little well known secret among journalists is the election of the first half african american nominee is a dream come true. They want to write about and follow "history."

How exactly do you know he bleeds away Democratic support? because of POLLS????? Polls in MARCH???? Please!

Obama has not been going down for months. What are you talking about??? Example please, and please do not let it be Rasmussen, I'm very skeptical of his polling, it seems to have a Republican agenda.

Everything is not known. Look at Hillary and the Bosnia thing. A republican could play that over and over in the GE. The idea that her negatives cannot got higher is ludicrous.

1) Bush was an incumbent with sky high approval ratings at the time. No one would beat him in match ups given how popular he was. When the economy tanked so did his popularity. 1992 is irrelevant to 2008 since there is no incumbent running.

2) Perot screwed himself by dropping out. When he came back he recovered only about half of his support. Oh, and Perot also went down once he got scrutiny and criticism. When he burst on the scene as a "change" candidate he was very popular. Ultimately what doomed him was dropping out like a flake and then coming back later.

3) McCain isn't an incumbent. Why are you ignoring 1968, 1976, 1988, and 2000? Those are the real analogues. In each case the new candidate led by double digits before losing ground as political gravity kicked in. What is worrying about Obama is that he, unlike Nixon, Carter, Dukakis, and Bush 00' is already losing...

4) So you agree with Ferraro then? I don't buy it. The msm was pro-Kerry and basically handed Gore the nomination after two states in 2000 (he won only NH 51-49). In the end they savaged Gore and attacked Kerry, did nothing to defend him with the truth during the swiftboating. They are rethugs and will be on the rethug side when it counts like they are every year.

5) Polls in March. That should tell you something. He is already bleeding Democratic support and his negatives have a long way to go. Why is Obama coughing up more Democratic support than even Dukakis?

6) Obama started out the campaign (early 2007) kicking McCain, and the other rethugs tails in such polls. That is what should be expected from a "new" candidate in a change year. Now he loses...


7) The Bosnia thing is no big deal. No one is going to vote against her based on that. Those who think she is a liar already do. The same people hyping Bosnia are the same ones who claim pastorgate and Obama stereotyping three out of four voters is no big deal.

8) Her negatives could rise but they won't go up much. The sky is the limit for Obama and even with a big advantage in this category he still does worse, now, than Clinton against McCain. Clearly many folks who like Obama will not vote for him. Any guesses why? There is a reason no one since 1788 has been elected president with as little experience or accomplishments as Obama...

Bookmark it. By October the polls will be in Obama's favor.

You should understand that history does not always repeat itself in just the same way.
This is a change election and McCain will never represent change. He may be tied with McCain now, but he should be 10points behind Hillary after Pastor-gate, and he's even and even with McCain.

The Bosnia thing is no big deal? Hillary flat out LIED about what happened and its on tape now over and over on youtube and now will become a story and was the lead on CBS News. People who thinks he is a liar already do? What about people who weren't sure? You cannot cherry pick what is a big deal and what is not a big deal, sorry bb.



Oh and about the media, the difference with Kerry and Gore is they are not historic candidates. Having them win would not be in their journalistic interest. Trust me, a lot of journalists are secretly salavating at the thought of being the first to report Obama is president and what it means. Is it fair? maybe not but it's true.

with Chris Rock on the cover and there's also a caption on the front that says, "Hillary's Flimsy Case". I haven't read it yet but I probably already know a lot of what Matt Taibbi will write about.

There's a really cool pic of Chris Rock and Obama inside, too.

Money Quote from Matt Taibbi.. "Nobody is better than the clintons at calculating the electoral math of paranoia and back-alley nastiness."