Tie Game

Every liberal I know in DC is busy warning every other liberal I know in DC that liberals are too overconfident of our chances in November, direly issuing statements about John McCain's strengths as a candidate and Barack Obama's fatal weaknesses. John Judis has always led the charge of pessimism, but near as I can tell the alleged overconfident attitude doesn't have any adherents, and the "everyone is being overconfident" view is actually universal and utterly dominant.

I'll stand up for overconfidence. Elections are mostly determined by the fundamentals, and the fundamentals are against McCain. On top of that, Democrats have the more charismatic nominee. I look at national polling that shows Obama in a 45-45 tie with McCain, which is a very bad result for a de facto incumbent, and a terrible result for someone facing such a favorable campaign dynamic. We are, right now, at this very moment, witnessing the peak of McCain's electoral stock -- a time when Hillary Clinton is beating up Obama on a daily basis, and virtually no Americans have been exposed to the Democrats' anti-McCain messaging. Anything can happen, in principle, but if someone forced you to make an even odds bet on the outcome of this election, I don't think there can be any serious debate about what the smart play is.

Comments

McCain is as close to the second coming of Bob Dole as anyone could ask for. Except that the fundamentals are worse for McCain than they were for Dole.

Clinton likes to pretend she thinks Obama can't win in November, but this is just the story she has to tell to have any hope of winning a victory by superdelegate. I'm confident that she really thinks that McCain can't win. Thus it's worth conducting a scorched-earth campaign for the nomination.

Posted by neil | April 16, 2008 11:00 AM

I'm so tired of the perpetual defensive crouch of the Democratic party that I'd be really happy if we managed to lose with chutzpah rather than going quietly into that good night in '08. Of course, I'd rather we win.

Posted by Statler | April 16, 2008 11:03 AM

I think that Obama is going to get torn apart by the media in a general campaign. Also, he and Hillary can tack to the left in the primary because they are appealing to liberal voters. The difference is that Obama believes what he is saying and will never be able to come across as a more moderate leader. I think the American people are going to wake up and realize his resume is pretty slim.

Posted by danceswithgoats | April 16, 2008 11:03 AM

I think people worrying about overconfidence are right. We don't know how a black candidate would perform in the relevant states (just as we don't know how a woman would perform, or a candidate with negatives which have gone as high as HRC's have gone would perform). That said, McCain would be 76 by the end of his first term. If a voter wouldn't trust him to drive his car, I'm not sure why the voter would trust him to drive the country. I like the Dems chances.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 16, 2008 11:07 AM

I'm assuming you wrote this before noted elitist Bruce Springsteen endorsed Obama, ending any hope of him keeping the last shreads of working class sympathy he had.

Posted by Client #11 | April 16, 2008 11:09 AM

I should think that if early head-to-head polls show anything, it's that "[swing state] voters will categorically refuse to vote for a [black/woman]" is not a true statement.

Posted by neil | April 16, 2008 11:10 AM

I think that this is probably correct. But I will say that the "bitter" controversy gives me pause on two grounds. Not the substance of it, which will blow over, but:

(1) It was a pretty serious unforced error by Obama. As unfair as some of the attacks from McCain & Clinton based on the comments were, this was not a manufactured issue. I thought Obama was more adroit than that. This makes me concerned that there may be similar errors closer to the general election that may have more of an impact.

Of course, it can be argued that McCain is even more prone to such gaffes. Which leads me to:

(2) The press. Until the past week, there seemed at least some hope that the press liked Obama enough to partly counter the love the press has for McCain. Now it's clear that that isn't true. Evey mistake by Obama will be magnified 1000 fold, and every mistake made by McCain will be ignored or rationalized. The press will continue to suck McCain's dick 24/7 for the next 7 1/2 months.

Will that be enough to overcome the fundamentals? I tend to agree that the fact that McCain isn't doing even better in the polls than he is doing now is significant evidence that it won't. But I wouldn't exactly bet the house.

One significant variable is Clinton. If her post convention support for Obama is lukewarm or non-existent (which I think is sadly possible), then Obama is going to have some problems.

Posted by LarryM | April 16, 2008 11:11 AM

Anything can happen from here to November, so Democrats need to be vigilant. We should not underestimate McCain. He is far more adroit than many believe. Besides the media is biased towards McCain. Over the past few weeks McCain has made a lot gaffes but media doesn't go on and on like they do with the Dems. And finally, McCain has better chance winning the white working class vote and Hispanics who are not predisposed to voting for a black person.

Posted by Micheline | April 16, 2008 11:12 AM

McCain is busy creating a Democratic treasure trove of boneheaded statements on Iraq (his supposed strength) and on the economy. He's going to get eaten alive in the debates when his words are thrown back at him. He's bad in the debates to begin with, he'll be absolutely wretched when having to defend his flip-flops, confused statements, and piss-poor predictions.

Posted by LFC | April 16, 2008 11:14 AM

Ugh, Matt.

Every morning the message-makers of the Republican party meet in Arlington to send out the days talking points to talk radio, columnists, and the peretually-offended crowd that dominates conservative politics in this country.

THERE IS A REASON WHY THESE PEOPLE HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO LAY A GLOVE ON OBAMA. The GOP message is disciplined. Sure, some might point out to specific incidents in the past few months when they have appeared to go after Obama, but this just isn't so since those attacks originated with Team Clinton. I fear you are being naive. Once he is officially the nominee, and the calendar reads September and not April, this guy is going to be slimed with every racially baiting, patrotism questioning fake controversy there is.

Just put it this way: They made John Fucking Kerry, the most non-offensive person there was, the devil incarnate by election day.

The odds are far from even.

Posted by JFD | April 16, 2008 11:16 AM

I don't think the general election will be close at all. Besides the terrible fundamentals for the GOP, people forget just how bad a candidate McCain is (e.g., his utter lack of command of domestic policy, inept debating skills, age-related? gaffes, etc...).

I know the national polls currently show Obama in a dead-heat w/McCain, but I think you'll see a widening lead once it is clear that Obama is the nominee and the voters actually begin to see McCain in a clear light.

Posted by AndyJackson | April 16, 2008 11:16 AM

THERE IS A REASON WHY THESE PEOPLE HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO LAY A GLOVE ON OBAMA.

Are you high? They're attacking him more than Clinton these days. Go look at Michelle Malkin's blog. Go look at Rush Limbaugh's site. Go to FreeRepublic. He's the new public enemy #1.

Posted by neil | April 16, 2008 11:19 AM

As usual, the obvious answer will turn out to be the right one. Nice job standing up for obviousness.

Posted by Wilson | April 16, 2008 11:20 AM

people forget just how bad a candidate McCain is

My friends, the good American people will overlook this...

uh...

can someone fix the teleprompter?

Posted by neil | April 16, 2008 11:22 AM

I think it's reasonable to assume that one reason HRC is using the kitchen sink is because she's convinced of a Dem lock in November. That, and she's a monster.

Posted by Jake | April 16, 2008 11:26 AM

"Anything can happen, in principle, but if someone forced you to make an even odds bet on the outcome of this election, I don't think there can be any serious debate about what the smart play is."

Yes and that the smart play is the realization that Americans do not elect liberals to the Presidency. Neither Hillary or Obama will be elected President because they are, in their heart of hearts, liberals.

So what odds will you offer me that McCain will be the next POTUS in the election where the fundamentals are in the Dems favor? 10 to 1? 50 to 1? 100 to 1?

Posted by Chicounsel | April 16, 2008 11:27 AM

a de facto incumbent

Huh? I suppose you mean someone from the same party as the President, but still, he isn't exactly the current Vice President or anything.

In any case, Matthew forgot the most important reason that McCain will lose - he's a lot shorter than Obama!

Posted by Al | April 16, 2008 11:35 AM

McCain leads on the economy as I have commented here several times. You guys will never get it. Do you think the voters are stupid and vote against their interests?

Posted by wellbasically | April 16, 2008 11:36 AM

Never expect any decency from Republicans, so sure they could tag Obama as the liberal muslim terrorist elitist nigger, but I have my doubts. McCain is old, crusty, a poor politician, and will not fair well in a comparison to Obama, especially not in a debate. Obama is much sharper attacker and skilled at parrying attacks with little damage taken--and is able to throw the occasional damaging counterpunch as well. McCain is all about the war, and it's hard to see how that doesn't termainally damage him in november.

Posted by Client #11 | April 16, 2008 11:38 AM

No, wellbasically, he thinks that the voters were wise and prudent to elect George W. Bush twice. Are you new here?

Posted by neil | April 16, 2008 11:40 AM

The big problem is that this stupid Democratic defensive posture does not help win elections. When you help the media spin everything as "bad for Democrats", you play right into the Republicans hands. These guys are just trying to get out in front of the story if Obama goes down (and they are programmed to think he will). It's the same old story where faux-liberals make money talking up the 'problems' with the party. The problem is all these asshats running around prognosticating doom all the time.

Posted by mpowell | April 16, 2008 11:41 AM

I am not worried about the Republicans as I am worried about the TradMed's endless fluffing of McBush. They'll stop at nothing to help get him elected. They're his base after all!! All snark aside, I am worried only because the TradMed will get into overdrive to protect their buddy. Notice the Newspaper Editors conference in DC the other day? Or McBush on Hardball last night? That's what we have to fight.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 16, 2008 11:48 AM

In any case, Matthew forgot the most important reason that McCain will lose - he's a lot shorter than Obama!

Actually, there may be something to that. I remember that Bush insisted on a setup in one of the debates that minimized the fact that he was shorter. As silly as that sounds, I think there may actually be something to height bias. Multiple studies have shown that there is weight bias.

Posted by LFC | April 16, 2008 11:48 AM

Also, jeebus, but it's a Zogby poll. You might as well be throwing darts to determine who's ahead right now. McCain leads Obama by 3 points on the economy? Really?

OTOH, is Matthew correct that a tie is "a very bad result for a de facto incumbent"? Four years ago at this point in the campaign (almost to the day), Zogby had a poll showing Kerry 3 points ahead of Bush, and we all know how that turned out.

Still, McCain is a lot shorter than Obama.

Posted by Al | April 16, 2008 11:49 AM

"... Anything can happen, in principle, but if someone forced you to make an even odds bet on the outcome of this election, I don't think there can be any serious debate about what the smart play is."

Of course not since the Democrats are 3-2 favorites on intrade.

Posted by James B. Shearer | April 16, 2008 11:51 AM

Great post by MattY. Personally, I think the DNC should put all their decision-making in the hands of twenty-somethings with little life experience.

Oh, and everyone should just forget about Obama's negatives. I'd list some of those - including the ones that haven't yet received wide recognition - but it's a long list and I don't want to burst MattY's bubble or anything.

And, if things don't work out like MattY says, at least the Democratic Party will hold its head high and accept its crushing defeat with dignity.

Posted by TLB | April 16, 2008 11:53 AM

It's not that the tallest candidate always wins. It's that a candidate less than 5'8" almost always loses. McCain is 5'7".

All this talk of how polls today determine the election outcome in November is worthless. Polls, like stock market prices, are noisy. Real value is determined by fundamentals, and so are elections, as will be clear in November.

Posted by Tyro | April 16, 2008 11:55 AM

One thing I've noticed is that Republican partisans tend not to go around saying "Oh no! We're doomed!" They say, and believe, that they are going to win. Democrats are the party of pessimists.

To be fair, there are obvious reasons for this, based on past experience.

But:

There is no evidence that this will be anything other than another close election.

Pessimism is self-fulfilling. Americans are basically optimistic but superstious people. No one wants to hang around losers, because it might be catching.

Posted by Pithlord | April 16, 2008 12:04 PM

Matthew discussed the short bias here.

Posted by Al | April 16, 2008 12:05 PM

I really wish that the tiresome Clinton supporters would realize that, whether they are correct or not regarding who is the more electible candidate in some abstract sense:

(1) Obama, whatever his weaknesses, is almost certain to in fact be the candidate. Clinton has her personal reasons for trying to destroy his electability, but you would think that her supporters would be starting to realize that bashing the almost certain Democratic nominee is a bit counter productive if we expect to beat McCain in the fall.

(2) Whatever Clinton's electability might be in the abstract, given the current state of the race (and absent a complete collapse in Obama's support, which isn't happening), in the unlikely event that she does get the nomination, she is going to emerge so damaged from the convention that she will have little to no chance against McCain.

Neither of those points requires one to think that Obama is a great candidate, or even (in the abstract) a better candidate than Clinton. The fact that so many Clinton supporters seem unable to acknowledge either fact is probably the biggest reason why they get accused of bad faith and worse.

Posted by LarryM | April 16, 2008 12:05 PM

I'm not OVER confident but I am confident that Obama can win. Republicans actually seem pretty confident that they'll be able to win the race by smearing Obama's personality, history, and general liberalness.

That's not working so well this time. Here in Indiana I've been stunned by several deeply Republican acquaintances telling me of their affection for Obama. After Wright. After bitter. They like the guy!

Now I don't expect them to hold onto those good feelings. They get too much Limbaugh and Hannity to not eventually return to the fold. However, independents and Democrats just don't seem to be allowing themselves to be sidetracked this year. They know that a vote for McCain is a vote for war in Iraq and war in Iran. They WILL know that a vote for McCain means Social Security going down the privatization rathole. They aren't going to like that anymore coming from McCain than they did last time from Bush.

Democrats are going to turn out big this fall. Independents show every sign of turning out big this fall. McCain will not be getting a free ride and his history is more problematic than Obama's. Sure, Obama is going to get slimed but he'll have tons of money and tons of sympathetic proxies to make sure the slime doesn't stick as well as usual.

OVER confident? Nope. Just realistic that this year we've got a charismatic candidate who is politically adept. That candidate is going to be flying with a tailwind and the odds look good to me for an Obama victory in November.

Posted by Curt M | April 16, 2008 12:10 PM

If I had to make an objective prediction of the outcome of the election, I'd predict an Obama win.

Most of us here, however, are not in the business of making objective predictions about the outcome of elections. We're partisans. As partisans, we can't afford to say that Obama is obviously going to win, so why make a lot of effort. This one needs to be fought like Truman taking on Dewey.

Posted by rea | April 16, 2008 12:11 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | April 16, 2008 12:18 PM

Well, let me make it clear that I'm not saying that Obama *can't* win against McCain.

I'd say that the current political landscape is about the worst for the Republicans in at least 35 years, maybe even 75 years or longer. And now the economy's likely to collapse further before November.

Also, McCain is probably one of the worst and weakest candidates the Republicans have run in decades. Not only is he desperately clinging to some of the Bush's most unpopular positions, but powerful segments of the Republican/conservative movement are very eager to see him defeated, regardless of which Democrat is facing him.

Given the combination of these two factors, I'd give Saint Barack a pretty reasonable shot at winning in November. In any normal election year, he wouldn't stand a prayer.

Posted by RKU | April 16, 2008 12:27 PM

You guys are overlooking a major Negative Factor against Obama:

The Yglesias Jinx.

Quick, Matthew. Spit over your shoulder and proclaim loudly that McCain is going to win by a landslide. It may not be too late. Maybe the gods were sleeping.

Posted by Don Williams | April 16, 2008 12:28 PM

Great post by MattY. Personally, I think the DNC should put all their decision-making in the hands of twenty-somethings with little life experience.

Yeah. The government has performed sooooooo well in the "experienced" hands of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. I'll take young, bright people over a bunch of old snapperheads any day. Of course, Bush's choice of using lots of young Liberty University grads got us blind loyalty, stupidity, and inexperience. HE HIT THE TRIFECTA!

And as to the current economy that somebody mentioned, McCain seems to be teaming up with Alan Greenspan and Phil Graham, two of the lead snapperheads who are to blame for policies that are a major basis for the current fiscal mess. Want the U.S. to live in a state of perpetual and ever increasing debt? Then McCain is your guy.

Posted by LFC | April 16, 2008 12:31 PM

This idea that Americans don't elect liberals is ridiculous. Americans will elect liberals, but they won't elect pussies (Al: "They're the same thing!").

You'll remember that Gore won the popular vote (yea, yea...) in 2000. Kerry barely lost. It's not like Bush was winning watershed, Reagan-vs.-Mondale elections.

It's when liberals refuse to fight back, because the general voter thinks that there may be some legitimacy to the attack they receive. Liberals have been horrible at defending themselves. Sure, often times the facts and logic are on their side, but that doesn't win elections when someone is going around claiming that you said you invented the internet, and you don't come out swinging back. The Republicans boil things down to this level, the known vs. the unknown, "all American" vs. "vaguely European", boisterously Christian vs. godless, and then they rely on the winner-take-all Electoral College in order to cruise to victory via a strategy of attrition.

It's not a complicated formula, and all it takes a candidate who's willing to fight back (and it doesn't hurt if he doesn't have the excessive backage of someone with the last name of "Clinton").

Posted by socctty | April 16, 2008 12:31 PM

To kind of make the above point in mathematical terms:

First, I'm going to make some wildly favorable pro-Hillary assumptions.

Let's assume that, in the abstract, Hillary has a 67% chance of defeating McCain, and Obama a 33% chance.

Let's assume that, without trashing Obama, Clinton has a 10% chance of getting the nomination, and that with trashing him, she has a 20% chance.

Let's assume that an ugly and bitter convention fight will only cost her 7% points, i.e., that she will still have a 60% chance of victory.

Let's assume that, by Clinton trashing Obama (and staying in to the bitter end), his chance of victory in November declines from 33% to 25%.

Then:

Non-trashing strategy, chance of Democratic victory in November: (90%*33%)+(10%*67%)= 36%

Trashing strategy, chance of Democratic victory in November: (80%*25%)+(20%*60%)= 32%

With more realistic assumptions:

Non-trashing Strategy: (90%*70%)+(10%*30%)= 66%

Trashing strategy: (85%*55%)+(10%*10%)= 48%

Posted by LarryM | April 16, 2008 12:33 PM

RKU - If McCain comes out and states the obvious, that he's a one-term president, he'll win over those conservatives who still claim to be sitting out (which I don't buy in the first place).

They've come too far to just give a Democrat the office this year and then give them the advantage of incumbency in 2012. They're bluffing just as much as the Clinton supporters who profess that they're McCain supporters in an Obama-McCain election.

last post should say "baggage" of course.

Posted by socctty | April 16, 2008 12:39 PM

The point I'm making is this: it's easy to see from Clinton's perspective why trashing Obama makes sense (though ironically her strategy doesn't seem to be working; the point is, from her perspective it seems to be her only real shot at this point).

But it's hard to imagine a set of realistic assumptions which, given the current state of the race, make trashing Obama the correct strategy for achieving a Democratic victory in November.

Posted by LarryM | April 16, 2008 12:40 PM

BTW, here's an example of what I mean about the "unfavorable" political landscape for Republicans PLUS McCain's weakness.

The lead stories in the NY Times this morning included:

(1) Incomes of several top hedge-fund managers in 2007 topped THREE BILLION DOLLARS each (!).

(2) McCain's proposed "economic package", which is basically "more tax cuts for the rich" because Bush was too Communistic in his policies.

I wasn't sure whether I was reading the NYT or The Onion.

Posted by RKU | April 16, 2008 12:41 PM

McCain is the only R who can make this a close race. And it will come down to a few swing states, like always.

We all view events through our own experiences/biases, so I'm aware of my own. I think McCain beats Obama. The fresh face (definitely not Hillary) should be much further ahead than McCain at this point in the polling, as people can project whatever motivates them onto the new guy. Recall GHWB and Dukakis. Granted, Dukakis did not have a death match primary, but the fact that McCain is close even now should worry you.

BobDole was pathetic. And he was up against Bill. Say what you want, but McCain is no BobDole, and Obama is no Bill. It's not even close to a valid comparison.

I suspect many of the overconfident also thought Kerry was a slam dunk.

Confidence is good, but cockiness repels. You've seen it within your own primary. R's know they are the underdogs in this cycle, and you won't see them get cocky.

Can we agree that if the D's blow this one that they should just give up?

Posted by Beer Here | April 16, 2008 12:43 PM

Well done! This kind of bold and straight analysis is rare indeed. We read it here first.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 16, 2008 12:49 PM

Re Obama

Hamas supports Obama. End of discussion.

"Hamas all out for Obama, believes he will end isolation of terror group
By Israel Insider staff April 15, 2008

Bookmark to del.icio.usDigg!Digg This Story

On the eve of a planned meeting of its leader Khaled Meshaal with former President Jimmy Carter, the Hamas terrorist organization has expressed the "hope" that Senator Barack Hussein Obama will win the presidential elections and change America's foreign policy.

Even though Obama has said that he would not meet with Hamas unless it renounces violence and recognizes Israel, or becomes the recognized leadership of the Palestinians -- he has no qualms about holding talks with the leadership of Iran, Syria, and North Korea -- that doesn't seem to bother the Hamas leadership.

"We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections," Ahmed Yousuf, Hamas' top political adviser in the Gaza Strip, said in an exclusive interview with World Net Daily and with the John Batchelor Show on WABC Radio in New York.

He saw Obama's comments about Hamas as political posturing that was understandable to lull supporters of Israel before the election.

"I understand American politics and this is the season for elections and everybody tries to sound like he's a friend of the Israelis," he said. All that would change if Obama would get elected. "I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse.... I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance," Yousuf said, speaking from Gaza.

Obama was criticized last month after it was reported his church reprinted an opinion piece by Hamas defending terrorism as legitimate resistance, denying Israel's right to exist and comparing the terror group's official charter -- which calls for the murder of Jews and the eradication of Israel -- to the American Declaration of Independence. The Hamas piece was published on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s "Pastor's Page" in the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter.

After U.S. Jewish groups issued statements of concern, Obama denounced the Hamas piece and distanced himself from his church's newsletter. But he would not disavow his anti-Israel, anti-American pastor."

Posted by SLC | April 16, 2008 12:49 PM

The real problem with the "liberals can't win" meme is the lack of an adequate data set.

I'm not sure how far back ewe can legitimately go - the electorate was significantly different say, 40 years ago. But:

2004: liberal defeated, but barely
2000: tie
1996: no liberal in the race (of course, many conservatives were happy to call Clinton a liberal - I tend to agree he is not, but either he was, in which case the whole thesis falls down, or he wasn't, in which case the result doesn't support or contradict the meme).
1992: see 1996
1988: liberal loses
1984: liberal loses
1980: see 1996
1976: see 1996

So ... the last 8 presidential elections. Assuming Carter and Clinton can't be characterized as liberals (obviously if they are, the meme is garbage), we have 4 elections where the "liberals can't win" thesis isn't tested. That leaves 4 elections where it was tested. Under the best of circumstances, that's a pretty small sample size. When one considers that one of those four elections was in essence a tie, and that two were losses to incumbents ... well, I wouldn't exactly bet the house on the "liberals can't win" thesis.

Posted by LarryM | April 16, 2008 12:50 PM

SLC,

Yes, we know you don't support Obama. But the Likudnik vote is a small fraction of a small fraction of the electorate, and most of it would go to McCain anyway, even against Clinton.

Obama may win and he may lose, but if he loses, it won't be because of insufficient hatred of Palestinians.

Posted by LarryM | April 16, 2008 1:05 PM

Re LarryM

Apparently, Mr. LarryM equates the Palestinians with terrorists and anybody who criticizes Hamas ipso facto hates Palestinians.

Posted by SLC | April 16, 2008 1:24 PM

It's also worth noting that something like 25% of Hillary supporters and 25% of Obama supporters (give or take) are claiming they won't vote for the other guy, ostensibly to vote for McCain instead.

We know from historical precedent that this simply won't happen. Voters who identify as democrats will vote their party, and voters who identify as Republicans will vote their party. There's a lot more Democrats this time alone; that alone portends well for November.

But what I'm getting at is that this 45-45 split is probably an illusion. There's a sizable number of Clinton supporters who are saying "I'll vote for McCain over Obama" because they think that's the best way to help Clinton out. (And vice versa). Once it's really down to a two man race, we'll see all Democrats align with their party and McCain will take a tumble in the polls. I think the "Would you prefer a democrat or republican in the White House" question is the most predictive at this point.

More subjectively - I do feel McCain is an exceptionally weak candidate. He's a mere shell of the guy who ran in 2000, on the wrong side of public opinion on *everything*, and has his own problems with frequent gaffes (and a temper, by all accounts). Meanwhile Obama is proving himself to be a much more adept candidate than either Gore or Kerry were - he's shown twice now and ability to turn "swiftboat" style attacks to his advantage; and the fact that he's all but beaten the Clinton machine speaks volumes about his political abilities.

Posted by Eric | April 16, 2008 1:26 PM

I'd like to go a step further and warn of the dangers of underconfidence. We are going to kick ass! It is time to strut and trash talk. Make the weak-willed who are afraid to be linked to a loser flock to us. Make potential Republican donors believe their campaign bribes would be in vain. Sow dispair and discord amongst our enemies that we may smite them... Okay, time for a pill.

But I do believe confidence is a plus.

Posted by Njorl | April 16, 2008 1:34 PM

SLC, I assume you're a McCain supporter. It makes sense. You don't want Obama because Hamas said they prefer him. McCain wants to stay in Iraq because if we leave, he thinks bin Laden will "declare victory". You're both puppets who take your cues from terrorist groups.

How does it feel to relinquish independent thought for a simple "whatever they say, I'll do the opposite" strategery?

And when did the right-wing become so easy for our enemies to manipulate? Did the right-wing used to have more spine, or am I just late in noticing how flaccid they've always been?

Posted by LFC | April 16, 2008 1:45 PM

Re LFC

Mr. LFC has incorrectly assigned me as a McCain supporter. I do not support any of the three candidates currently in the race. I support Al Gore as I think he would be the strongest candidate against McCain. I don't think either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton can win because the country isn't ready for a black or woman president. If that makes me a male chauvinist racist, so be it.

Posted by SLC | April 16, 2008 2:05 PM

I'm worried about the people that are worried about overconfidence.

Posted by Rihilism | April 16, 2008 2:11 PM

I have seen three seperate petitions going around, one had nearly 12,000 signatures of Democrats who WILL NOT vote for Barack Obama should he be the nominee and I am one of those. I already have had my name removed from the DNC and I have switched to Independant. I will vote John McCain if that's the way the general ends up. I have spent months researching Obama's career and I am ABSOLUTELY stunned at what is there and verifiable that the mainstream media, for whatever reason, has ignored.

This guy (Barack Obama) is not what he perports to be. He has more nefarious ties than Richard Daley of the old Chicago regime. I am at a loss as to why the media has given him a pass but he has never really been vetted and his most questionable contacts & actions have been totally ignored.

I have never in my more than 50 years voted for a Republicen but that will be me in November if Obama is the Dmeocratic choice. There are many of us who feel that the Democratic National Committee & the Mainstream Media have conspired to shove Barack Obama down our collective throats and not all of us are willing to be force fed this less than qualified candidate.

Posted by Wyoming Dem No More | April 16, 2008 2:13 PM

The democratic party lost twice to an elitist, frat boy, draft dodging loser. Both times with extremely competent, substantially more experienced candidates, and as we all know, an extremely robust economy the in the first election and against a failed, fraudulent war in the second. Now we will have a contest that will be portrayed in the media as a centrist war hero vs. an inexperienced black man or a woman with the last name Clinton. Not a prayer.

Posted by Hope Abandoned | April 16, 2008 2:14 PM

I have seen three seperate petitions going around, one had nearly 12,000 signatures of Democrats who WILL NOT vote for Barack Obama should he be the nominee and I am one of those. I already have had my name removed from the DNC and I have switched to Independant. I will vote John McCain if that's the way the general ends up. I have spent months researching Obama's career and I am ABSOLUTELY stunned at what is there and verifiable that the mainstream media, for whatever reason, has ignored.

This guy (Barack Obama) is not what he perports to be. He has more nefarious ties than Richard Daley of the old Chicago regime. I am at a loss as to why the media has given him a pass but he has never really been vetted and his most questionable contacts & actions have been totally ignored.

I have never in my more than 50 years voted for a Republicen but that will be me in November if Obama is the Dmeocratic choice. There are many of us who feel that the Democratic National Committee & the Mainstream Media have conspired to shove Barack Obama down our collective throats and not all of us are willing to be force fed this less than qualified candidate.

Posted by Wyoming Dem No More | April 16, 2008 2:14 PM

I have seen three seperate petitions going around, one had nearly 12,000 signatures of Democrats who WILL NOT vote for Barack Obama should he be the nominee and I am one of those. I already have had my name removed from the DNC and I have switched to Independant. I will vote John McCain if that's the way the general ends up. I have spent months researching Obama's career and I am ABSOLUTELY stunned at what is there and verifiable that the mainstream media, for whatever reason, has ignored.

This guy (Barack Obama) is not what he perports to be. He has more nefarious ties than Richard Daley of the old Chicago regime. I am at a loss as to why the media has given him a pass but he has never really been vetted and his most questionable contacts & actions have been totally ignored.

I have never in my more than 50 years voted for a Republicen but that will be me in November if Obama is the Dmeocratic choice. There are many of us who feel that the Democratic National Committee & the Mainstream Media have conspired to shove Barack Obama down our collective throats and not all of us are willing to be force fed this less than qualified candidate.

Posted by Wyoming Dem No More | April 16, 2008 2:14 PM

The democratic party lost twice to an elitist, frat boy, draft dodging loser. Both times with extremely competent, substantially more experienced candidates, and as we all know, an extremely robust economy the in the first election and against a failed, fraudulent war in the second. Now we will have a contest that will be portrayed in the media as a centrist war hero vs. an inexperienced black man or a woman with the last name Clinton. Not a prayer.

Posted by Hope Abandoned | April 16, 2008 2:16 PM

Don't worry SLC, we already consider you a chauvinist racist.

Posted by Peter H | April 16, 2008 2:23 PM

Classic SLC:

"The Government of Israel acts in a beastly manner toward the Palestinians because being nice to them is seen as a sign of weakness and only encourages terrorist actions on the latters' part. In fact, the Israeli actions are far too lenient. The Government of Israel would be well advised to consider the actions of Hafaz Assad on the City of Hama in 1982 which were far more effective."

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/05/civil_war.php#comment-226767

Posted by Peter H | April 16, 2008 2:28 PM

Obama will mop the floor with McCain.

It's funny how so many people are scared of the Republican right. Grow a pair! Didn't they just lose Congress? Isn't the economy tanking because of the policies enacted on their watch?

On Iraq I'm more of a hawk, but the rightwing doesn't like McCain's past actions on immigration among other things. They won't be motivated.

Posted by Peter K. | April 16, 2008 2:57 PM

Obama will mop the floor with McCain.

It's funny how so many people are scared of the Republican right. Grow a pair! Didn't they just lose Congress? Isn't the economy tanking because of the policies enacted on their watch?

On Iraq I'm more of a hawk, but the rightwing doesn't like McCain's past actions on immigration among other things. They won't be motivated.

Posted by Peter K. | April 16, 2008 3:00 PM

Obama will mop the floor with McCain. The turnout for the Democratic primaries has been astronomical.

It's funny how so many people are scared of the Republican right. Grow a pair! Didn't they just lose Congress? Isn't the economy tanking because of the policies enacted on their watch?

On Iraq I'm more of a hawk, but the rightwing doesn't like McCain's past actions on immigration among other things. They won't be motivated.

What little chance McCain has can be credited to Hillary's "Tonya Harding" strategy.

Posted by Peter K. | April 16, 2008 3:03 PM

Peter H is a poopy head.

Posted by SLC | April 16, 2008 3:10 PM

Re Obama
Hamas supports Obama. End of discussion.

Bad news, SLC, I've read that Hamas also supports clean drinking water. You'd better go piss in the reservoir, or Hamas wins. End of discussion.

This guy (Barack Obama) is not what he perports to be. He has more nefarious ties than Richard Daley of the old Chicago regime.

Link? Evidence? Quote? Cite? Bueller? From where I'm sitting, it looks like your triple-post is based on what the voices in your head are telling you about Obama.

The democratic party lost twice to an elitist, frat boy, draft dodging loser.

Gore won the popular vote in 2000 despite a campaign which, hindsight aside, really was pretty bad, and he came very close to winning the electoral college too. And no incumbent president or vice-president running for reelection during a war has ever lost. It's unfortunate that 2004 wasn't the first time, but I don't think we can blame the Democratic Party too much for that.

Posted by Cyrus | April 16, 2008 3:16 PM

The democratic party lost twice to an elitist, frat boy, draft dodging loser.

Gore won the popular vote in 2000 despite a campaign which, hindsight aside, really was pretty bad, and he came very close to winning the electoral college too.

... Adding, I realize that Gore didn't actually win, which is unfortunate and demonstrates something negative about the country, the media and/or the Democratic Party. I'm just saying, keep it in perspective. Had he lost in a Goldwater-esque blowout, you'd have a very strong point. Under the circumstances, you still have a point, but it's much weaker.

Posted by Cyrus | April 16, 2008 3:21 PM

This election will not be a replay of 1996. Although there are similarities between Dole and McCain, there is one major difference. Many Democrats feel Obama is totally unqualified to be President. If Obama is the nominee, he will lose our votes. I would definitely vote for McCain or an Independent. After eight years of President Bush, we cannot afford another mistake.

Posted by EWard | April 16, 2008 3:42 PM

Eward:

"" Many Democrats feel Obama is totally unqualified to be President."

I haven't seen any evidence. Daschle, Lee Hamilton, Durbin, Pelosi? To me this is a lame trollish statement. You should be embarrassed. Hillary backers are sore losers.

What provokes people to write such trollery? What makes people such losers?

Posted by Peter K. | April 16, 2008 3:55 PM

"Many Democrats feel Obama is totally unqualified to be President."

Most of the Democrats that I come across who express that sentiment tend to, for the most part, be effectively repeating the well circulated republican talking point about Obama's lack of experience. Funny how we never heard that in the context of a one term Texas governor.

Posted by Hope Abandoned | April 16, 2008 3:56 PM

About the lameness and cheezyness of the Obama-haters and the nonevent "bittergate" media spasm Dan Drezner writes:

"Given the media firestorm over Obama's "bitter" statement, and given the overwhelming commetariat consensus that this episode would hurt Obama in the polls, and given the polling results clearly indicating this not to be the case in either Pennsylvania or across the country, what can be inferred?

A) Gun-toting, small-town Jesus-worshippers are so bitter that they don't watch cable news outlets;

B) Gun-toting, small-town Jesus-worshippers are so bitter that they aren't likely to show up as "likely voters" in a poll;

C) Gun-toting, small-town Jesus-worshippers are so bitter that their phone service has been cut off;

D) Gun-toting, small-town Jesus-worshippers are so bitter that they dislike Hillary Clinton even more than Barack Obama;

E) The commentariat is elitist and out of touch with what engages gun-toting, small-town Jesus-worshippers."

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003790.html

Posted by Peter K. | April 16, 2008 4:01 PM

Cyrus - I also happen to agree with you that we can't blame the Democratic party exclusively. I tend to believe that the MSM is extremely biased in the coverage of the candidates and has a significant impact on the public perception of the candidates and their positions. That's why McCain will be effectively marketed as a middle-of-the-road, centrist candidate who's a war hero to boot, while whoever the eventual Democratic candidate is will inevitably be pilloried. Nonetheless, I can't help but feel that the Democratic party could/should be more effective at getting their message out and posting significant margins over McCain given the current state of the country.

Posted by Hope Abandoned | April 16, 2008 4:13 PM

Making a statement that Obama is totally unqualified to be President is not a Republican talking point. I am a lifelong Democrat and usually have voted with the Party.

What has turned me away from Obama and his supporters have been the hatred and vilification of Hillary. Another blogger made the point that he has been marketed to appear Presidential. Since Iowa, the pundits have been pushing his candidacy. With Obama's three years in the Senate, that hardly qualifies him to be President. One more thing, most of the people that support him are so hateful. Why would anyone vote Obama into office when he attracts such a mean spirited crowd?

Posted by EWard | April 16, 2008 4:40 PM

EWard,

Mean spirited. Many Obama supporters can say the same thing about Clinton supporters. Initially, I wasn't too thrilled about HRC running for president but I was resigned to the idea that she was going to be the nominee. I am even less thrilled by the way she is running her campaign but if she is the nominee come November I will support her. I say this because I just simply want a Democrat in the White House. I can't take people who say they will vote McCain over Obama very seriously because the Supreme Court, etc are much too important to be overlooked.

Posted by Micheline | April 16, 2008 5:04 PM

Yeah, but Matt, you have to remember two things:

1) The upcoming Iran war.

2) Democrats.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 16, 2008 5:10 PM

EWard: Please explain, in clear, simple, direct terms, what experiences one gets in years 5-8 (but not in years 1-4) in the Senate that are so evidently crucial to one's future success as president.

Posted by djw | April 16, 2008 5:54 PM

Obama will win. He has a grass-roots organizing and money making machine. He will make John McCain look like a drooling old man with dementia during the debates. The Dems will roll out the videos of the McCain-/Bush lovefest and the 100 years in Iraq blunder, plus all his crazy confusion around Iran, Iraq, Sunnis, Shias. More Dems will vote this year. And finally, Obama will weather all of the slime because, deep down, most people want change and they want someone who represents change in the White House.

Posted by SMN | April 16, 2008 8:01 PM

The self-hatred of Democrats is something to behold.

When will Democrats simply work towards the win?

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 16, 2008 8:14 PM

On the issue of experience, one should remember that a past Illinoisan had even less experience in elective office then Senator Obama has. Remember Abraham Lincoln. I am not sure to whom to attribute the following quote but someone (possibly Napoleon) once said that in military matters, nothing is more important then a fine mind.

Just as an exercise, compare the presidents of the Union and the Confederacy in 1861. Lincoln had virtually no military experience, other then a week or two against some native Americans. Davis was a graduate of West Point and a former Secretary of War. Based on the experience factor, one would have preferred Davis over Lincoln. However, as General Fuller put it, Lincoln was a great war leader, Davis was a dried up old stick more suited to the cloister then the presidential house in Richmond. Lincoln turned out to be a great military strategist, Davis turned out to be totally incompetent. The difference was that Lincoln had a fine mind and Davis was a moron.

The moral of this little tale is, does Senator Obama have a fine mind? We know that Senator McCain does not!

Posted by SLC | April 16, 2008 8:41 PM

djw

Many people focus on the scandals of the Clinton Presidency. However, during Senator Clinton's first term, she worked quietly in the Senate to learn and get bills passed. The fact that Hillary was able to work on legislation with Republicans involved in the impeachment process speaks well of her. She has the temperament to be President.

Hillary's Health Care Plan was a disaster. Yet, she regrouped and learned from her mistakes. She was responsible for the Children's Health Insurance Program.

I want a President that shows good judgment. As a new Senator, Hillary realized that she wasn't ready to be President. Why are the pundits holding Obama to a different standard?

I just watched the last 40 minutes of the PA debate. Hillary's remarks about Americans being invisible to this Administration hit home. Her campaign is focusing on us. When Obama speaks, it is all about him.

Posted by EWard | April 16, 2008 10:50 PM

Largely non-responsive. I said nothing of Clinton scandals, or the failure of health care reform in the 1990's. You mention a few successes of Clinton's; all fine and good. But when you say this:

"As a new Senator, Hillary realized that she wasn't ready to be President. Why are the pundits holding Obama to a different standard?"

You're again invoking the claim that years 5-8 are special in preparation for the presidency (or at least that Pundits and Clinton herself beleive it, and are not wrong to do so). Why? What knowledge, skills, and abilities do those, precisely, do those extra four years in the Senate provide? I can't have anything to do with general legislative experience, because then it couldn't be a point in Clinton's favor. Senate, years 5-8: What's special about them.

Posted by djw | April 16, 2008 11:00 PM

Largely non-responsive. I said nothing of Clinton scandals, or the failure of health care reform in the 1990's. You mention a few successes of Clinton's; all fine and good. But when you say this:

"As a new Senator, Hillary realized that she wasn't ready to be President. Why are the pundits holding Obama to a different standard?"

You're again invoking the claim that years 5-8 are special in preparation for the presidency (or at least that Pundits and Clinton herself beleive it, and are not wrong to do so). Why? What knowledge, skills, and abilities do those, precisely, do those extra four years in the Senate provide? I can't have anything to do with general legislative experience, because then it couldn't be a point in Clinton's favor. Senate, years 5-8: What's special about them.

Posted by djw | April 16, 2008 11:01 PM

Largely non-responsive. I said nothing of Clinton scandals, or the failure of health care reform in the 1990's. You mention a few successes of Clinton's; all fine and good. But when you say this:

"As a new Senator, Hillary realized that she wasn't ready to be President. Why are the pundits holding Obama to a different standard?"

You're again invoking the claim that years 5-8 are special in preparation for the presidency (or at least that Pundits and Clinton herself beleive it, and are not wrong to do so). Why? What knowledge, skills, and abilities do those, precisely, do those extra four years in the Senate provide? I can't have anything to do with general legislative experience, because then it couldn't be a point in Clinton's favor. Senate, years 5-8: What's special about them.

Posted by djw | April 16, 2008 11:05 PM

djw

Why is Obama qualified to be President?

Posted by EWard | April 16, 2008 11:23 PM

He's a naturally born US citizen over 35.

Now, once more with feeling, tell me about the magical years 5-8. Please. I want to know.

Posted by djw | April 17, 2008 3:59 AM

He's a natural born US citizen over 35.

Now, once more with feeling, tell me about the magical years 5-8. Please. I want to know.

Posted by djw | April 17, 2008 3:59 AM

"He's a natural born US citizen over 35."

Why is he qualified to be President?

Posted by EWard | April 17, 2008 8:43 AM

Hillary won debate hands down,she knows her stuff thats for sure.Obama needs to go back and learn policies,#1 in my book is heathcare he wants to give heathcare to some of the people some off the time,How about Heathcare to all of the people all of the time like Hillary wants to do.Hillary is a MUST win.

President Hillary Clinton 08

Posted by Christine | April 17, 2008 9:28 AM

EWard, those are the qualifications. At least the "required" ones. The "desirable qualifications" are, thanks to the magic of democracy, up to voters. Voters have never been terribly taken in by "experience" arguments that involve bean-counting of years in the Senate and so on. Since there's not really any correlation to speak of between years in the Senate or other such measures and success in the job.

(The current White House resident might appear at first to be an exception, but only if you don't really think about it too hard. Does anyone actually think that an extra 5-10 years as a politician would have made Bush a better president?)

So, if you insist, I'll give you a non-snarky answer, or at least a less snarky one (in exchange, you really really owe me an explanation about the magic of years 5-8!). Obama qualified because he's a talented politician who seems to me to be more likely to successfully advocate for wise policies, both foreign and domestic, than the alternatives to him. I don't impose a 'counting years of service' standard, which is actually not terribly unusual; experience arguments rarely carry much weight in presidential campaigns because most people, rightly, don't do that either. You are, of course, welcome to do so; such is the magic of demcoracy. But why?

What, specifically, happens to a Senator in years 5-8 that is so transformative for one's ability to be a successful president? Did Edwards have it for you? (Because the answer might help us pinpoint if the magic occurs in years 5-6, if yes, or years 7-8, if no)

Posted by djw | April 17, 2008 10:39 AM

Experience does matter and vetted to the MAX. Unlike Obama, whose resume is flimsy thin and the background checks are just starting to come in...and it ain't pretty. If he is the nominee (doubtful), all bets off, cuz the GOP is piliing on their arsenal and will attack with full on force. Don't make me go Republican!

Posted by Corage | April 17, 2008 10:47 AM

Hillary will win the nomination. Obama is showing his true colors and will keep doing so from now until Denver. Rezko, Sinclair, Wright and Ayers to name a few clumps of dirt. His "boneheaded" mistakes are really adding up.

Posted by SLC | April 17, 2008 2:54 PM

Obama is clearly intelligent, articulate and thoughtful and I believe will put policy ahead of politics. It will be quite a change from the past eight years and is what this country needs right now.

Posted by Hope Abandoned | April 17, 2008 5:00 PM