Clinton versus McCain

Kevin Drum tries to cheer me up about the prospects of a Clinton/McCain matchup. Like most of the most convincing pro-Clinton commentary out there, it seems to me to succeed by taking on a weak charge. I know a certain number of people who think McCain is a shoo-in against Clinton. As Drum says, those people are wrong. That said, I think McCain is pretty clearly a stronger nominee than the main alternatives on the Republican side. And, again, Clinton looks like a weaker nominee than the alternatives.

In the wake of the John Kerry Fiasco people have tended to deprecate the "electability" test. And, I think, rightly so. The most important determinant of election outcomes is the broad national fundamentals. Beyond that, the most important thing is running a solid campaign. That means there's intrinsically a lot of uncertainty and it makes sense to not put a ton of weight on this factor. That said, all the available evidence points to there being more people with friendly feelings toward Obama than there are with friendly feelings toward Hillary.

Comments

That said, all the available evidence points to there being more people with friendly feelings toward Obama than there are with friendly feelings toward Hillary.

This is probably true now. I'm not sure that it will be true after a ten-month campaign.

Posted by Gabriel | January 10, 2008 12:23 PM

"That said, I think McCain is pretty clearly a stronger nominee than the main alternatives on the Republican side."

Loose lips sink ships, Matt. Try to cultivate a quaking terror of Mitt Romney, who is obviously the most dangerous general election candidate. Why... he can even carry Massachusetts! What hope would any poor ol' Democrat have against such a gifted politician? *Cough, cough*

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 10, 2008 12:25 PM

I think the likelihood of McCain actually winning the republican nomination is very low. Even if he did win it, I don't think he has the ability to get those republicans that did not vote for him in the primaries to show up to vote during the general election. McCain does not have the luster among democrats that he once had. Most republicans don't like him and I don't think the independents can make up for that. I think any democrat beats McCain.

Posted by buyproduct | January 10, 2008 12:30 PM

First pick someone who will win. If they can win, then the country already perceives them to meet the minimum experience and qualifications to be president. If they don't *truly* have them, well, better to tailor and improve your winning presidential candidate, and let him learn along the way, than abandon him and lose the election by choosing someone with more experience but less winnability.

People in 2004 thought that by going with Kerry's Vietnam "experience" and "war credentials" they were choosing someone more "electable." But if you'd asked anyone before Kerry's nomination how they actually felt about the guy, few would've expressed enthusiasm.

Posted by Bill | January 10, 2008 12:30 PM

...and Rudy Guiliani will certainly take New Jersey and New York.

Posted by goethean | January 10, 2008 12:30 PM

That said, all the available evidence points to there being more people with friendly feelings toward Obama than there are with friendly feelings toward Hillary.

OTOH, there are greater limits to the grossest ways in which the Republican candidates can dog whistle on HRC than on Obama. Republicans weren't going to get the black vote anyway. The main reason to seem friendly to black voters is to reassure white female voters (or so I think Rove said). But attacking HRC on dog whistle gender grounds seems at least as likely to cost Republicans those white women voters, whom they currently win by (I think) 10%, as attacking Obama on race-related dog whistle grounds. Even K-Lo gets irritated by some of the gender related HRC-bashing, and occassionally gets frustrated by the lack of Republican female politicians.

I don't think the issue is as clear cut as you're making it out to be.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 10, 2008 12:30 PM

In the wake of the John Kerry Fiasco people have tended to deprecate the "electability" test.

I'm sick of the logical fallacy underlying this tendency. Yes, Kerry lost. But, that doesn't mean he wasn't the most electable out of the top three (Kerry, Dean, Edwards).

Here's an analogy that some of the logic-challenged out there might understand. Remember half-way through the season, when the undefeated Patriots played the undefeated Colts, narrowly pulling it out 24-20? Despite the fact that they lost, I still think that, at the time, the Colts were the most likely team to defeat the Patriots.

Posted by Jim W | January 10, 2008 12:31 PM

I'd worry about Clinton-McCain.

I'm an Obama supporter. I'll vote Clinton because of the courts, Iraq policy and healthcare if she wins the nomination, but I don't foresee myself taking on an activist role for her. My core beef with Clinton is her lack of principles and comfort in status quo Washington. From Ricky Ray Rector to the Iraq War, the Clintons seem to value power and popularity over doing the right thing. Where Obama can hit McCain on Iraq hard, Clinton can't, because until 2007, she and McCain held the same position. I also think Clinton can't touch McCain on character and integrity. McCain won't have nearly the advantage on that if he faces Obama.

McCain vs. Clinton is a sure loser for us. McCain would win at least the states Bush did, maybe more.

Posted by Fox | January 10, 2008 12:35 PM

This matchup simply won't happen. God's People (Republicans) will not nominate McCain because he doesn't cheer for torture, deporting people, and tax cuts 'no matter the cost'. He's going to get drubbed in South Carolina and everywhere else in the South. It will be Huckabee-Clinton (very bad news) or Huckabee-Obama (yea, we win).

Posted by jvoe | January 10, 2008 12:35 PM

I think McCain would probably turn out to be a very weak national candidate. During his campaign here in New Hampshire he looked listless and disinterested. He coasted on a lot of leftover good feelings from 2000, and a strong dislike of Romney. Frankly, it doesn't look to me to be a man who is really very interested in being president anymore, and that would become very apparent in a long two-person general election. He gives every indication of being a man whose time has passed, and who even believes that himself.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 10, 2008 12:35 PM

Not to be too rude, but folks who went to Harvard think that McCain would be a strong candidate because they would vote for him. They have no idea how far McCain is from the evangelical Republican base. Anyone involved in "right to life" politics knows that McCain's election would destroy their movement at the national level. Sure, he's "strong" on Iraq but he's probably the most secular candidate in the race. Hillary is far more religious than McCain, who's basically a boozing flyboy in a suit.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | January 10, 2008 12:36 PM

I'm sick of the logical fallacy underlying this tendency. Yes, Kerry lost. But, that doesn't mean he wasn't the most electable out of the top three (Kerry, Dean, Edwards).

Dear Lord. Edwards was the most electable...

Posted by Bill | January 10, 2008 12:38 PM

OTOH, there are greater limits to the grossest ways in which the Republican candidates can dog whistle on HRC than on Obama. But attacking HRC on dog whistle gender grounds seems at least as likely to cost Republicans those white women voters

Definitely. There already was a poll done on who was electable in Kentucky here. Clinton is handily more electable than Obama . Of course, as we all know, Edwards is more electable than either one of them, but he doesn't seem to have much chance now.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 10, 2008 12:38 PM

"OTOH, there are greater limits to the grossest ways in which the Republican candidates can dog whistle on HRC than on Obama."

You're completely, totally, utterly wrong on this. Forget the GOP, just look at Chris Matthews. He feels comfortable ripping Hillary in the most sexist ways possible. Can you imagine him or any other member of the traditional media feeling comfortable with ripping Obama on racist terms. One of the better arguments for Obama from a social discourse perspective, is that his candidacy would force the GOP to either bring their race-baiting to the front of the political discussion or force them to run away from it.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 10, 2008 12:39 PM

The country is strongly inclined to elect a Democratic President after 8 years of Bush's failed Presidency and due to increasing economic problems. The idea that they will instead elect an aging, uncharismatic Republican who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years just because a hardcore minority of conservatives hate Hillary Clinton more than Osama Bin Laden is laughable.

Posted by Ron | January 10, 2008 12:42 PM

That said, I think McCain is pretty clearly a stronger nominee than the main alternatives on the Republican side.

Maybe. I mean, I've tended to think so, too. But who knows? The guy is 71 soon to be 72. That's pretty old. At the end of the day a guy like Mitt Romney or Giuliani might be more formidable.

One of the better arguments for Obama from a social discourse perspective, is that his candidacy would force the GOP to either bring their race-baiting to the front of the political discussion...

Nonsense. The GOP knows how to engage in dog whistling better than anybody. Either Clinton or Obama will face underhanded GOP bullshit. For Obama it will revolve around race and Islam. For Hillary it will entail lesbianism and radical feminism.

Posted by Jasper | January 10, 2008 12:47 PM

Obama's a muslim! He went to school in a madrassa! I met Obama at the Playboy mansion!

As I said before, trying to figure out who your opponents are going to be the nicest to is a lousy way to pick your own candidate. This is a stupid discussion. Even if the right (and the media echo chamber) don't go after Obama in racial terms, they'll still find a way to turn him into a joke--Obambi, Opie, and so on.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 10, 2008 12:47 PM

The idea that they will instead elect an aging, uncharismatic Republican who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years - Ron

If the media is to be believed and if NH "independents" are representative, I wouldn't laugh so hard. Evidently, independents and Republicans angry at Bush's failed policies are expressing their angy by voting for McCain of all people!

Posted by DAS | January 10, 2008 12:49 PM

You're right Matt. If Hillary is able to win back a chunk of married women, bring new women in, and marginally improve on Kerry's Latino performance (note that I said marginally - McCain is more solid but hardly invincible with Latinos) --- Hillary will win.

McCain will be tougher than the others. But he's badly positioned on Iraq and the economy. And he's old. As long as Clinton plays hardball, which she will, it will be close at worst. And if he falls down once, has one temper meltdown, etc., it's over.

I'd still prefer Obama or Edwards in this matchup, though.

Posted by Buford P. Stinkleberry | January 10, 2008 12:50 PM

Why the continue reading link if there is nothing more to read than comments? Did I click something wrong, did Matt have difficulty linking the second half of the post, or was the link a mistake?

Posted by freddiemac | January 10, 2008 12:51 PM

Isn't McCain's big problem that his own party pretty much hates him...? Dorks like Hugh Hewitt and Mark Levin constantly spout nasty things about Maverick on their blogs.

All things considered, it's hard to see how HRC could get fewer votes than Kerry although she arguably has the same likability problem as he did. McCain / Huckabee / Giuliani might seem like intriguing alternatives to independent voters, but each has a big problem with at least one important GOP interest group (the SoCon elite hates Giuliani, MoneyCons hate Huckabee, everyone except perhaps the NeoCons hates McCain for not being a team player).

I'd still gamble on the "nice young man" (Obama) because of the potential upside. No matter how poorly he fares against the Republican nominee, it seems he would not attract as much opposition from the wingnuts as Hillary undoubtedly would = lower turnout in all November 2008 elections.

MARCU$

Posted by MARCU$ | January 10, 2008 12:53 PM

McCain is not the candidate most likely to win the GOP nomination. That would be Huckabee.

Clinton versus Huckabee versus Bloomberg in a "change election." Discuss.

Posted by Rodney Ping | January 10, 2008 12:54 PM

I write the following as someone for whom Hillary is the least-preferred of the three major Democrats:
It seems to me that McCains' war-record, the main thing which commends him as an individual, is going to be more relevant against a man who never served in the military, which applies to both Edwards and Obama (and especially against one as cosmopolitan as Obama), than against a woman. He and his supporters (and the anti-Hillary types) would still try to do it against Hillary, but I cannot imagine it having the same appeal.

Posted by Moral Panicker | January 10, 2008 12:59 PM

Forget the GOP, just look at Chris Matthews. He feels comfortable ripping Hillary in the most sexist ways possible.

Which some people think explains the NH results. I don't know if that's even partially true, but insofar as it is, that's my point.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 10, 2008 1:00 PM

"Evidently, independents and Republicans angry at Bush's failed policies are expressing their anger by voting for McCain of all people!"

Well, that makes a certain sort of sense when you get down to it. Those are the people who are angry at Bush for what they see as a failure of competence. Ideologically they're not particularly upset with Bush. They want to vote for a hardcore winger who has a chance not to completely embarrass them. They'd be voting for Fred Thompson if he weren't busy impersonating a corpse, but under the circumstances McCain is their natural choice.

Posted by R Johnston | January 10, 2008 1:01 PM

Clinton will beat most any republican in 2008 with the hardest challenge coming from Mitt Romney.

Consider that 2008 will be a year of housing foreclosure, huge corporate bancruptcies, job layoffs, stock market losses, ets.

MBIA AMBAC XCEL are all bond insurers that will suely go into bancrupcy unless they can raise vast sums of capital quickly. ATT has said that their revenues are down because people are not paying their telephone bill. Capital One, the nations largest credit card company, is suffering from unpaid credit card bills, and the sale of Student Loan Corp has fallen through becuase the buyer doesn't think the loans will be repaid on time. Dividends are being cut right and left. And when dividends are cut job cuts are sure to follow.

Ben Bernanke just today hinted at the urgency needed to inject money into the system. It looks like a fifty basis point cut at the next meeting Jan 30th with a lot of speculation it could be sooner.

In light of the economic tsunami that will befall us in 2008 having Clinton in the White House will look like the best hope for most working class Americans to regains some lost security back.

Romney, with his business background, is the only one who could possible challenge Clinton on economic issues.

Posted by ken | January 10, 2008 1:03 PM

"That said, all the available evidence points to there being more people with friendly feelings toward Obama than there are with friendly feelings toward Hillary."

What evidence would that be?
A poll of you DC beltway friends?

I'm amused at how shallow you are at times

Jack

Posted by lonesome jack | January 10, 2008 1:09 PM

I get a big time headache every time I try and divine what dem candidate will, first be able to win and, second how they will govern. I suspect when you peel away the campaign rhetoric strategy, they all would behave similarly in the Oval Office, The one exception is, I fear Hillary might be pushed more easily by the GOP into using military action unnecessarily. That's a big exception in these times and is why I can't support Hillary for the nomination, although I will dutifully vote for her in the general.

I get even a bigger headache when analysing The repub candidates. They all scare me shitless and none more than McCain, who is the only repub that can win. Gawd help us if that happens.

Posted by nightjar | January 10, 2008 1:10 PM

Although I am sick and tired of people guessing at who is going to make that 2 point spread on Nov. 8, I do think there is some point in speculating about what this year holds and how it will effect voter choices. I don't like Hillary Clinton at all, but my guess is that a recession is going to help her a lot, especially against a guy like McCain, who is all foreign policy. Oh, and election funding reform, and issue that excites five people in a think tank in Fall Creek, Virginia. This is Clinton's advantage against Obama - if there is an economic downturn, if unemployment reaches 6 percent by Nov. 8, Obama's 'inexperience' will count against him, Clinton's experience will count for her. I don't know if it will count enough to matter in either case, of course. If the GOP nominates McCain as the economy is turning down instead of Romney, they will have been very foolish.

Posted by Roger | January 10, 2008 1:19 PM

Bernanke speaking live right now on Bloomberg TV:

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?clipSRC=LiveBTV

Posted by ken | January 10, 2008 1:22 PM

I'm Hawkity liberal hawk Obamabot who would probably like Hillary's foreign policy better and agree with Drum Hillary or Obama or Edwards could beat McCain.

This is why the Democratic primary is so heated and emotional, it's effectively the election of the next President.

The base hates McCain because of what he did on their number one issue immigration. The Republican establisment hates him because of his slightly maverick ways on issues like campaign finance reform and torture. I kind of doubt he'll get the nomination, but who knows.

Obama just needs to maintain and not let the insantiy get to him. Hillary just showed with her League-of-Their-Own scripted crying moment, that's she's more brilliant and tougher when the chips are down than anyone gave her credit for.

Posted by Peter K. | January 10, 2008 1:25 PM

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

Clinton and McCain both brought us to IRAQ.

Posted by PulSamsara | January 10, 2008 1:26 PM

From where I'm at, I know a lot of people who don't like Hilary, including some Democrats. Conversely, I know a lot of Republican/Independents who find Obama appealing.

Posted by Peter H | January 10, 2008 1:26 PM

Can you imagine him or any other member of the traditional media feeling comfortable with ripping Obama on racist terms [?]

Depends on which state you mean. A black candidate tends to bring out the knuckle-dragging goons in some of the traitor states.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 10, 2008 1:45 PM

John Kerry Fiasco would be a cool band name. I look forward to it's hit albums "food and intoxicating beverages" and "the low temperature." Also the song "little subpoena."

Posted by Sam Boyd | January 10, 2008 1:46 PM

McCain in general election '00: unbeatable.

McCain in general election '08: Bob Dole.

Posted by Henderstock | January 10, 2008 2:05 PM

Kevin Drum is a great blogger, and he is far from uncritical of Hillary, but Washington Monthly is getting pretty aggressive in their support of Hillary. Drum's comments moderator actually banned me because I criticized Hillary a few times (in strident but civil terms), while leaving up really profane and nasty posts bashing on the other candidates.

I think the edict has come down over there. Not sure whether this should affect how one evaluates Kevin's analysis of Hillary's electability, but they are clearly going to be upset over there if Hillary doesn't win this thing.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 10, 2008 2:14 PM

I would be more concerned about a McCain/Obama match up. Even Obama supporter Mark Schmitt concedes McCain has "mr. bi-partisanship" sewn up.
The press may even have a bigger jones for McCain than they do Obama. I think Obama (and any other Dem) beats McCain but he would need to run a different campaign in the fall. (youth vs your crazy grandfather maybe)

Posted by realist | January 10, 2008 2:51 PM

...Drum's comments moderator actually banned me because I criticized Hillary a few times (in strident but civil terms...

Dilan: It was most likely Drum himself. And it resulted probably because your supposedly "strident but civil" criticism was actually a completely over the top, repetitive, wild-eyed, neverending screed.

Posted by Ynos | January 10, 2008 3:11 PM

"if there is an economic downturn, if unemployment reaches 6 percent by Nov. 8, Obama's 'inexperience' will count against him, Clinton's experience will count for her."

WHAT BLEEPIN' "EXPERIENCE" IS THAT? Saying "Look what my husband did as Governor" or "Look what my husband did as President" doesn't strike me as being a great response when the GOP candidate is ripping Hillary's lack of accomplishments. That's not saying Hillary's not smart and capable, but if you wrote out her resume for President...would it really look that much better than, say, George W. Bush's in 2000?

As much hammering as Hillary has gotten from the Right, has any other Dem candidate gone after her half as hard as Romney's gone after McCain and Huckabee?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 10, 2008 3:14 PM

I am firmly in Obama's camp, and would vote for Edwars if he were the nominee - but if it's Clinton v McCain, John McCain has my vote.

If it's Clinton v anyone else, I might take a pass on voting in the presidential election.

No way I will vote to put the Clintons back in the White House.

They had their shot, and proved to be a total embarrassment to the country. Never again.

Posted by Anybody but Slick Hilly | January 10, 2008 3:20 PM

They had their shot, and proved to be a total embarrassment to the country. Never again. - Anybody but Slick Hilly

I've heard this many a times from people in this country (from the same people who think Jimmy Carter is an embarassment as an ex-pres because you can find a photo of him in a dirty flannel shirt and jeans, gasp, building a home for some needy family), but I've never known a furriner who thinks less of us for electing the Clintons. So how are they an embarrassment again? Bush, OTOH ...

I guess it's all a matter of class, ain't it?

*

Anyway, how do you feel about Huckabee? I note you like Obama and McCain ... as I've been trying to point out, Huckabee, Obama and McCain, while ideologically all very different are striking the exact same rhetorical notes.

Posted by DAS | January 10, 2008 3:32 PM

I would worry about Hillary's electability when it comes to the black vote. Do they still show up/vote Democratic after she takes out Obama's campaign?

Posted by Mario | January 10, 2008 3:35 PM

"Anybody but Slick Hilly" is a perfect example of the sort of Obama supporter I mentioned in another thread whose absurd hatred and conspiracy mongering related to the Clintons just makes me want to vote for Hillary.

Any Obama supporter who says he'd vote for McCain in the general over Hillary is either lying or certifiably insane. Aside from the fact that McCain and Obama are both current media darlings, they disagree on 99.9% of all policy issues facing the country.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 10, 2008 3:35 PM

McCain wins it. Frankly Romney being a mormon bishop raises as much problems as Obama being a muslim. But Huckabee being a minster is ok for the republicans to deal with. Unless Edwards Jumps on the Obama ticket, Obama is done as well. In NH people just couldn't vote for a black guy, even though in the exit polls they said they did... So look for McCain/Huckabee (probable), or McCain/Giuliani (pending Super Tuesday).

Posted by Anthony | January 10, 2008 3:41 PM

Do they still show up/vote Democratic after she takes out Obama's campaign?

They've got nowhere else to go.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 10, 2008 3:44 PM

Rob Mac, I won't vote for McCain, but I won't vote for Evita Clinton either. This country is not a banana republic -- yet.

Posted by Traven | January 10, 2008 3:45 PM

Aside from the fact that McCain and Obama are both current media darlings, they disagree on 99.9% of all policy issues facing the country. - Rob Mac

That's true. But, c.f. Ezra Klein's point: voters work on cues rather than platforms. And Obama is giving the same cues as McCain.

Unfortantely for Obama, McCain (as proven in NH which it seems allows independents to pick a party's primary and vote in it -- so some people who may have otherwise voted in the Dem primary for Obama voted for McCain) has the "Mr. Bipartisan" brand locked up.

But the general point is that that's why talk of "electability" often leads in the wrong direction. If "moderates" and "swing voters" really did vote on a laundry-list of positions, the most moderate candidate would be the most electable. But voting habits among the low info voters (e.g., pace R Johnston above, those who voted for McCain in protest to Bush) are not exactly rational, are they?

Posted by DAS | January 10, 2008 3:46 PM

Dilan: It was most likely Drum himself. And it resulted probably because your supposedly "strident but civil" criticism was actually a completely over the top, repetitive, wild-eyed, neverending screed.

Ynos, the Moderator who identified him/herself specifically said that he or she was not Kevin Drum.

And if you look at the threads in question-- there were 3 of them-- I was responding in rational terms to a bunch of Clinton defenders who were repeatedly using profanity, being nasty, calling me names, etc. I didn't use profanity, was not nasty, and called no people names. Not only that, but when the moderator indicated displeasure with my posts, I was careful to tone it down. The people whom I was debating with, in contrast, ramped it up.

In other words, if anyone was going to be banned, it was the people responding to me. Indeed, not only that, but the "last straw" was apparently a post that I made SYMPATHIZING with Hillary Clinton over the "crying" issue.

The Moderator over there is clearly selectively banning posters who criticize the Clintons.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 10, 2008 4:03 PM

The reason the Clintons were an embarrassment is the whole "blow jobs from interns in the White House" thingy.

In case any of you had forgotten.

And Hillary was part of their vicious response, and the embarrassed our country in a way that a lot of people like me will never forgive.

The Clinton's like to make the impeachment scandal out as a vast right wing conspiracy, as Ken Star's fault, but we all know that their behavior in the White House was just disgusting and a lot of us would never, ever give them the chance to go there again.

Remember the way Hillary viciously went after Bill's gal pals?

The entire "Comeback Kid" thing happened because "Hillary stood by her man," calling whatshername a liar, when we all know that Bill and Hillary were lying...

After Bush, what most Americans want is an adult in the White House - someone we can trust.

I might not agree with McCain on a lot of issues, but he is a man we can trust. So is Obama.

Hillary is still lying about her vote on the Iraq war, which she did not because she thought it was right, but because she thought it was politically expedient.

Better a truthful hawk than a lying dove.

Hillary will never get my vote.

Posted by Anybody but Slick Hilly | January 10, 2008 4:10 PM

Total drivel! McCain is old. He will be 72. The man is not an inspiration. Hillary appears fresh, energetic, upbeat, etc. compared to the fossil. McCain has no life to him. Look at the international world. No, McCain will not help us compete internationally. How can McCain be looked at honestly when there is Romney. The man is winning in number of votes and delegates and is adamant about sticking this out until he gets the nomination at the National Convention. The man has the experience, education, values, everything. People have their sunglasses on when it comes to Romney or they are too effected by the liberal media. Use your critical thinking skills people. Who is the proven innovator? I do not see how Romney cannot win when it comes around to the National Convention. Look at the debates and at the focus groups. Ya, the focus groups stated one winner and that was Romney. Let's spout Romney's credentials and track record and put that up against any of the democrats and the liberal media will go into frenzy. So, basically, VOTE ROMNEY!!!

Posted by John Delroy | January 10, 2008 4:16 PM

Even if he did win it, I don't think he has the ability to get those republicans that did not vote for him in the primaries to show up to vote during the general election.

You're right. Only Hillary has that ability.

Posted by jim | January 10, 2008 4:21 PM

Mitt Romney is a total fraud, and the people of New Hampshire, who know him very well, showed this with their vote.

Romney has a good record, but he has run away from it and pandered to every group imaginable, essentially selling out his own record.

Romney is a joke, he has not chance in a general, and the Republicans will be smart not to nominate him, as he will get torn to shreds.

Posted by Anybody but Slick Hilly | January 10, 2008 4:24 PM

Most republicans don't like him (referring to McCain)

What exactly is this common wisdom founded upon? Nothing about the man makes me think our ill-informed populace would find him distasteful. From a conservative POV, even his faults on social issues seem muted, somehow. The derailment of the S-T X-press won't even cause a blip in the general election, at least in the minds of Repub voters -- relative to Romney, Grandaddy Mac is a juggernaut.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | January 10, 2008 4:35 PM

Let's remember that if the New Hampshire primary dealt only with republican voters Mitt Romney would have been the winner. It is the independents that led McCain to victory. The independents will not be able to have this open vote in all of the primaries. One should know the facts before labeling someone a fraud. I must done much research and Romney is the farthest thing from a fraud. You are going to have to do better than sensationalist name calling to get people to jump on your wagon. Romney is the most qualified candidate that we have had in many years.

Posted by Joan Pemberton | January 10, 2008 4:36 PM

You're completely, totally, utterly wrong on this. Forget the GOP, just look at Chris Matthews. He feels comfortable ripping Hillary in the most sexist ways possible. Can you imagine him or any other member of the traditional media feeling comfortable with ripping Obama on racist terms. One of the better arguments for Obama from a social discourse perspective, is that his candidacy would force the GOP to either bring their race-baiting to the front of the political discussion or force them to run away from it.

That would be true, if they couldn't outsource their racial agitprop to fringe players. The GOP funds it surreptitiously, relies on hatchet men to carry it out, then gets their message replayed endlessly by Tweety, et al, as a sure ratings-grabber, while the latter glibly denounces such hateful speech. How exactly would anything be brought to the fore from such a spectacle?

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | January 10, 2008 4:47 PM

I might not agree with McCain on a lot of issues, but he is a man we can trust. So is Obama. - Still Fighting Scalawags and Carpetbaggers even though Reconstruction Ended some 131 Years Ago

And how do we know we can trust McCain? Or even Obama for that matter?

And if we can trust McCain, we can trust him to do that which we disagree with? I guess you'd rather have the devil you know, so to speak, eh?

BTW, the Republicans I know can't stand McCain. As Joan Pemberton points out, it was Independents who led McCain to victory in NH. For better or for worse, Obama and McCain, who are diametrically opposed on both issues, are running on the same set of cues, which is why someone like AbSH (are you a Southron, AbSH?) can "trust" both of them.

Interestingly, Obama might do fairly well in the South in a match-up against McCain ... he's sending cues that would assure people who don't like the AK Hillbillies that he is of the right class and not going to "embarass" us, but, unlike McCain, who otherwise owns the bipartisan schtick that the pearl clutchers in a place as aristocratic as the South love, he doesn't have the baggage McCain does with Southrons.

Otherwise, though, as has been pointed out, McCain already owns the territory Obama is trying to claim, so McCain has the advantage. And that's what McCain's win in NH was about ... not that GOoPers like McCain. 'Cause from the few I know, they can't stand him.

Posted by DAS | January 10, 2008 4:51 PM

As a Brit with a fascination for what happens over the pond (it affects us all you know) and at also as a Catholic (the UK is 10% Catholic which most in the USA are unaware of, though now Blair has become Catholic it might start to dawn on people) my nightmare would be Guiliani vs Clinton, my dream would be Huckabee vs Obama. Like most Brit Catholics I am pro-life but strongly anti the Iraq war (I was one of the million who marched against it). Of course I don't get a vote but I send up the odd prayer and hope to God we don't get the one person who is both strongly pro-abortion and voted to invade Iraq (i.e. Clinton). Despite Iraq, if McCain publically admitted that there are new exciting alternatives to embryonic stem cell research, then he might be my ideal candidate.

Posted by David | January 10, 2008 4:55 PM

from absh

'And Hillary was part of their vicious response, and the embarrassed our country in a way that a lot of people like me will never forgive."

By "whole lot of people" who are you referring to? I suspect wingnuts who relentlessly pursued the Clinton's in desperate attempts to run them out of the White House. Bill Clinton has remained popular with the American people thru it all.

I would posit the real "embarressment" the country feels is owned generally by republicans and specifically George W. Bush.

Posted by nightjar | January 10, 2008 5:13 PM

As an Irishman with a fascination for what happens over the pond (it affects us all you know) and at also as a lapsed Catholic (the Republic of Ireland is 50% Catholic which most in the USA are unaware of and understandably unintersted in), my nightmare would be be Huckabee vs Obama and my dream would be Guiliani vs Clinton. Once the 9/11 veneer is wiped away, Guiliani will lose, not least becuase some of those religious types won't even be able to hold their nose and come out to vote for Guiliani. Go Hillary.

Posted by paddywakery | January 10, 2008 6:06 PM

50% lapsed Catholic I mean..oops!

Posted by paddywakery | January 10, 2008 6:08 PM

I hope McCain at least stays in the hunt, because the longer he's out campaigning the less damage he does in the Senate.

Posted by Jalmari | January 10, 2008 6:53 PM

MBunge, I don't think Hillary's 'experience' is, in reality, a lot greater than any other candidates. But when, as you say, Republicans start saying that her experience can't be taken to have been acquired magically by being married to Bill Clinton - they are going to have face a problem of their own creation. Since, after all, their fundamental message has been to heap blame on Hillary for Bill Clinton. It is the republicans that first started the "they come in a package" meme. This is the course they've chosen so far. Logically, if Hilary is at fault for Bill's faults, then it is hard to say she isn't to praise for his virtues. What they've done is seal the connection between Bill's experience to Hillary. I think they were absurdly stupid to do that. The Republicans think that is going to be a turnoff; I think not. Thus, their own campaign attack turns against them if they then drop it to go, oh, Hillary is totally separate from her husband, and she doesn't have experience. The response being oh, what you've been saying for the past six years is a lie?

Which is why I think Clinton's smart to emphasize her experience, in the end, instead of doing what the dopey press thinks she should do and letting Bill fade into the background.

Posted by Roger | January 10, 2008 7:03 PM

Hillary is dead. R.I.P.

Posted by Al | January 10, 2008 7:30 PM

"The Republicans started the "they come in a package meme."

Uh, no.

It was Bill saying that with him and Hillary "you get two for the price of one."

Posted by What? | January 10, 2008 9:19 PM

Obama vs McCain is no better or worse than Clinton vs McCain just different. If you want to run with electability then you end up with Edwards (beats McCain and crushes the other Repubs)

McCain presents real problems to Obama in Politics 2.0 mode - he has bi-partisan wrapped up, he has fawning press coverage, he has faux leadership/experience, he has proven ability to get into Obama's head and his support among independents overlaps with Obama.

Obama wins that race by running a different campaign than he is now. (McCain also would not be able to defuse the age concerns with witticisms like Reagan)

An Obama vs McCain race is certainly more aesthically appealing but it isn't an easier win.

Posted by JJ&M | January 10, 2008 11:01 PM

What, I think Bill's you get two was simply a pick up on a meme that had been going on long, long before, during the whole nutty nineties, what with the dittohead notion that floated around the Hillary Clinton was playing Dracula to Bill's hapless Renfield, ordering the random suicide, getting her eunuchs to socialize medicine and what not. I refer you to the collected works of the Freeper site. Don't go in there without an asbestos suit, man! And if you don't think that the Fox News/Crazy Right fiesta is not going to confirm that Bill and Hillary are two heads of one beast, then you just haven't been following their loony tunes for very long.

Posted by roger | January 10, 2008 11:11 PM

whatever the case...anyone hear McCain call Hannity and Colmes "jerks" tonight after the debate? He was jesting, but with McCain every joke of his seems to have some truth buried in it somewhere. Funny stuff, the reaction.

Posted by dave | January 11, 2008 12:11 AM

Has anybody looked at how much education Huckabee has??? Your in for a Big or actually small suprise. He spent 2 1/2 years on a Religion degree.. Thats all folks!!!
Also John McCains wife in the 90s had a drug addiction and stole from a charity....
Did you know Huckabee's wife's maiden name is MCCAIN!!!

And although they met at a religious college for religious degrees the Huckabee's didn't get married in a church.
I just read this stuff on wikipedia.com Read their biographies.

Posted by stephanie | January 11, 2008 12:34 AM

I worry about Hillary in the general election against McCain. I know some very liberal dems who have a soft spot for McCain, let alone the moderate dems who I know who might be vote for him. Romney is so fake, I could see dems rather than republicans waiving flip-flops at their convention this time around.

Posted by Daniel | January 11, 2008 2:11 AM

McCain probably has the best chance of winning among the Republicans, yet his 100 years comment can probably sink him. If we don't make sure every American knows about that and "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" come November, it will be time to clean every Dem consultant out of DC.

Posted by Reality Man | January 11, 2008 2:36 AM

The only solution in the endless *what if* circle is to pick your candidate, persuade as many folks as you can to that candidate and gather more votes than the other folks...way more votes so there's no questions about machines, dirty tricks, any of the trash we've had to endure.

After NH, I made the commitment that I would work at every level I could for my candidate. I do not want to lose the feeling of voting FOR someone, some idea, some feeling ever again.

BTW, all you Romney, best read his responses on this survey about executive power...he'll put GW to shame. All the candidates responses are at the link and they are very interesting.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/22/candidates_on_executive_power_a_full_spectrum/?page=full

Posted by G Davis | January 11, 2008 3:37 AM

Hillary just showed with her League-of-Their-Own scripted crying moment, that's she's more brilliant and tougher when the chips are down than anyone gave her credit for.

I can't believe people are interpreting it this way. Hillary had a breakdown. She _is_ that unstable. It was real, not a brilliant staged moment.

For a female presidential candidate to intentionally cry in front of TV cameras would be viewed beforehand as, at best, a huge gamble, at worst, political suicide (which it very well may turn out to have been).

She's a mess; she and the vaunted "machine" are out of touch with reality. And her "flawless" campaign has been an endless series of fiascos for 8 weeks.

Obama is the choice.

Posted by obama's dealer | January 11, 2008 8:14 AM

If you saw McCain on primary night in NH, you wouldn't worry too much about him as a candidate. He is going to be a shambling wreck by the summer. This isn't fun or nice to point out, especially because whatever vitality deficit he enjoys vs. other 70-year-old politicians might have to do with five years in a North Vietnamese prison, but it seems both likely and relevant.

Posted by Rich | January 11, 2008 8:39 AM

The main stream media want McCain to win because he is the most liberal of all the republican candidates and they tend to like the liberals. The main stream media can't stand Romney because he is the most conservative candidate with a chance of winning. Lets face it conservatives, McCain is a wolf in sheep's clothing and the media is only propping him up because they don't want a conservative in office.

Posted by Mike | January 11, 2008 11:44 AM

January 8th Rasmussen poll in Pennsylvania.

McCain leads Hillary 48 - 42.
McCain leads Obama 46 - 38

If McCAIN can win in Pennsylvania, which he apparently is capable of, he would be elected.

There is no way a democrat can win if it cant win in PA.

Posted by TRW** | January 12, 2008 12:00 PM

McCain won't be elected president.

He's a thousand years old and has a terrible personality that people will reject (think Bob Dole part II).

On top of that, he alienates both sides of the political spectrum: He supports staying in Iraq indefinitely, which will anger those on the left as well as independents; at the same time he is basically viewed as a full-on "liberal" by the conservative base, and "evangelicals" don't like him.

I think he loses.

Posted by Obama's dealer | January 12, 2008 6:39 PM

As an African-American, I think McCain is going to be the next President. He's got the West and the Midwest hands down.

I was pretty firmly in the Clinton camp, but after the openly dirty tactics they pulled in South Carolina and Nevada, i.e. using the race-issue against Obama in creative ways I never ever expected, I'm done with them. Yes, Bill and Hillary......

Posted by John | January 19, 2008 7:19 PM