AltonDarwin: I'm not suggesting that at all. Either Obama or Clinton should easily win all of Kerry's '04 states. The only exception I reckon is California. I think the Democrats will win it, but I suspect they'll need to spend a few buck to hold it down if Obama's the nominee, given his troubles with Asian and Latino voters (and McCain's popularity with the latter). Still, they should win it.
Two points here... There's NO WAY Dems are losing California this cycle. Latinos broke for Hillary on familiarity. When he's the nominee in the general, he will have built PLENTY of broader Latino support. He was La Opinion's choice after all. The Latino metrics will have to be assessed WITHOUT Clinton as an option. Second, McCain's troubled reception at CPAC means he won't be touting his pro-immigration stance to heavily come November either.
...My main objection on the electability front is that, as someone who has never been tested by the GOP attack machine, Obama's a bit of an unknown quantity when it comes to a general election. And I think if there ever were to be problems with his performance in November, they'd likely manifest themselves to the detriment of the party in the "close" (i.e, purple) states.
I am sick UNTO death of this tired meme. A Black man in politics untested by dirty tricks? PUH-LEASE. The Clinton's have tried to make some stuff stick and failed. Clinton keeps whispering Rezko like they don't have a dirty laundry list of their own sleazy campaign contributors. Further, all the Clinton's savvy didn't prevent Mr. Clinton from becoming only the third President in history to be impeached. Didn't stop the Whitewater inverstigations, Travelgate, the FBI file inquiries and any other myriad distractions that wasted countless millions and unraveled his legacy. Gore should have GLIDED into the White House after Clinton. Instead, Clinton's tattered coattails made him a pariah on the campaign trail and faciliatated Dubya's Florida theft.
Obama's a pol from Chicago. He'll be fine. BTW, McCain is REALLY weak on "values" after dumping his injured wife for a beer heiress AND racists still haven't forgotten about Bridget, his "Black" adopted Bangladeshi daughter. That red-state angst cuts both ways on McCain as evidenced by Huckabee's performances in those states. Huge swells of newly empowered Black voters PLUS soft support for McCain in base GOPers means the South is in play again. Obama's true 50-state strategy helps him here.
Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Texas is very unlikely to go to the Democrats this year. It's getting a bit purpler as time goes by, but it'll be another couple of cycles before it could reliably be considered a swing state. Texas is still a red state, and does not realistically figure into the Democratic party's plans for victory in November. They won't get it. They don't need it.
I will wait to see how Ron Paul fares in Texas to see how "in play" it will be. Even if he drops before Texas, his name will be on the ballot and will likely draw like he did in Louisiana. Voters choosing his HOPELESS campaign in lieu of the almost confirmed GOP candidate speaks VOLUMES. Again, in normal circumstances, Texas would not be a possibility; HOWEVER, circumstances AREN'T normal. McCain will be fighting tooth and nail for every social conservative AND swing independents. Obama has electrified the Black electorate in untold numbers, increasing their impact exponentially. McCain can't lost Romney's 7%, Paul's 5% and Huckabee's voters and win this race.
As an aside, if Texas is a foregone loss, Hillary's strategy to focus on it for primary delegate counts INSTEAD of expending resources on putting softer red states into play as Obama has done seems especially foolhardy.
Well, there's the fact that he's untested against the Republican attack machine;
Dealt with this one above... NEXT. Interesting that with all Obama's momentum "he's untested against attacks" is still the first thing people try to tar him with. Seems silly to me.
and the fact that a black candidate has never been a major party's nominee before (I hope it doesn't hurt him in the general election, but I'm not certain of this -- are you?
Ditto for a woman candidate. (I hope it doesn't hurt HER in the general election, but I'm not certain of this -- are you?). Incidentally, her NEGATIVES are SO MUCH HIGHER. She's a woman with baggage that draws red meat animus like a vulture to carrion.
and the fact that his youth and lack of Washington experience are likely to match up unfavorably against Senator McCain;
REALLY? I'll stack the most impressive political orator in a generation against crotchety Grandma marble-jaws ANY day. NO SENATOR since Kennedy has advanced straight from the Legislative to the White House. They're all on pretty equal footing in my book. Add to the mix that McCain is completely misreading the pulse of the country on Iraq and I'm sure either candidate would be fine. Of course, polling gives Obama the win and has Hillary as a toss-up, but polls are notoriously wobbly.
and the fact that he'll accurately be attacked by the GOP as one of the party's most liberal members
And Hillary as one of the most HATED... Are you SERIOUSLY offering that Hillary is seen as a viable ALTERNATIVE to McCain for GOP voters and independents? REALLY???
and the fact that he probably won't be able to press home the advantage on economic issues as strongly as Senator Clinton
MAYBE this is true. Although, Obama's ability to deliver compelling speeches on this issue closes the gap against someone as weak as McCain (who essentially admitted he has no ideas about the economy).
and the fact that he probably won't run as strongly as Clinton can in most of the aforementioned swing states -- where the election will be decided.
There are more than YOUR precious "swing states," Jasper. That's OLD paradigm electoral college calculus. What about how strongly Obama's playing in the states that his (and Dean's) efforts have put into play? The Dems in the "red states" are activated and inspired. If we can take Daschle's state (he sure thinks we can) and also take Colorado, Missouri and Idaho, your swing states lose their prominence. 2000 wouldn't have come down to Florida if Gore had won Tennessee. Likewise, flipping smaller, "low stakes" states will have a major aggregate effect in the general. This is the core idea behind Dean's 50-state strategy and Obama has embraced that philosophy. Clinton appears to be content with the same delicate web of states that has cost us two presidential elections in a row.
Also, I won't go into it in detail, but on economic issues (healthcare, Social Security, etc.) there are some substantive differences on their respective views, and some major differences in their teams of advisers.
Avoiding details on her wage garnishment mandates for universal health care is probably a good idea. THAT little detail should really play well in the cash-strapped constituencies that make up her base. At the end of the day, the vast majority of Dems are comfortable with either candidate in the general election. Their policy differences are about as extreme as the differences between the index and middle finger (you get to decide which candidate is which finger, SMILE). On balance, I predict that indeDEMdants will prefer Obama's "Yes We Can-do" spirit over an extension of "entitlement" benefits in Hillary's perceived "nanny state."
Comments