The Electability Campaign

Taylor Marsh says:

Tumulty, like so many others, are ignoring Clinton's only goal, which is to make the case to SuperDs that she would be the best nominee against John McCain, the traditional media, as well as the Obama blogs, are missing one of the greatest political dramas ever to unfold, second only to the 2000 election.

Clinton is campaigning on counting every single vote. But also that every Democratic delegate should be focused on who can win in November.

Now, I just disagree with Marsh on the Florida/Michigan issue. But it's quite true -- and indeed quite striking -- that the Clinton campaign has now shifted to a pretty single-minded focus on electability. The reason, of course, is that they know Obama will win a majority of delegates and they think the electability argument is most appealing to Democrats. The trouble is that the electability argument they really need is an absolutely electability argument which holds that it's almost inconceivable that Obama will beat McCain in November. That, however, isn't at all plausible and I was on a call yesterday where Howard Wolfson was at some pains to clarify that he wasn't making that argument.

Instead, she's leaning on the relative electability argument which holds that she's simply more likely to beat McCain. This is much more plausible as an argument. But unfortunately, it's also much less persuasive. Nobody ever really wants to say that they're backing the less electable horse in a nominating contest, but it's also true that nobody ever really wants to say they're passing up a superior candidate in favor of a more electable one. Thus, by convenient coincidence, in essentially every hotly contested primary fight, the people who think Candidate A would be better on the merits also deem Candidate A more electable. The reality is just that nobody knows who's more electable and nobody ever really knows or even knows how we might find out. Consequently, with a clear majority of self-IDed Democrats now backing Obama it's inconceivable that the superdelegates will do what Clinton wants.

Comments

Because the electability argument worked out so well with John Kerry.

Posted by Persia | May 23, 2008 5:36 PM

Persia: You beat me to it. My exact thought.

Posted by Brendan | May 23, 2008 5:39 PM

Persia: You beat me to it. My exact thought.

Posted by Brendan | May 23, 2008 5:42 PM

Marsh is wrong because we pretty much already know that not enough superdelegates will be impressed with Clinton's electability arguments to overcome Obama's pledged delegate advantage.

So, no real drama.

Posted by DTM | May 23, 2008 5:43 PM

John Kerry significantly outperformed reasonable expectations in 2004. Bush's approval rating was over 50, support for withdrawal from Iraq was under 40. Bush deserved to lose, of course but he wasn't unpopular yet. Kerry ran a good campaign, was a good nominee.

The problem for anyone trying to make the pro-Clinton argument now is not merely what Matt said - which is all exactly correct - but also that structural factors are just insanely good for the Democrats. The null hypothesis has to be something like 53-47, just based on experiences or perceptions of the economy and the war among Americans.

Clinton appears to be somewhat more electable than Obama, but not only is "somewhat more" a weak argument in any setting where people have made decisions based on more than highly fuzzy measures of electability, but also we appear to be in an election cycle where the identity of the candidate matters almost not at all, as long as they have the right party label and the right basic structures to their platform.

Posted by DivGuy | May 23, 2008 5:48 PM

She can easily make the case that Obama is absolutely unelectable. She can say that if the supers don't vote for her, she will quietly tell her supports not to vote for him. Or she can threaten to go Independent. Or she can have someone knock him off. She's not above any of these.

Posted by BR | May 23, 2008 5:49 PM

Clinton is campaigning on counting every single vote.

If the popular vote is now the most important factor to consider, then doesn't that retroactively punish caucus states? Doesn't this new metric punish states with primaries where only Democrats could participate? Are caucus and Democrats-only states disenfranchised by changing the rules in the middle of the game?

Posted by Moonlight | May 23, 2008 5:49 PM

She can say that if the supers don't vote for her, she will quietly tell her supports not to vote for him. Or she can threaten to go Independent. Or she can have someone knock him off. She's not above any of these.

This is just paranoid. She hasn't done any of these things, and she won't. I'll put money 1000-1 if you want.

Posted by DivGuy | May 23, 2008 5:52 PM

Seems like the more electable candidate is the one who wins more electoral contests, wins by bigger margins, etc. That would be Barack Obama, unless I'm missing something. (Not addressing the "Let's count Kim Jong-Il style elections with one name on the ballot while discounting perfectly good caucuses that we lost" strategy.)

Anyways, the fundamentals are so strong in the Dems' direction (Republicans in charge and strongly ID'ed with everything that's gone wrong this decade) that we could nominate the Cookie Monster at this point and he would probably win. Barring the dead-girl-live-boy scenario, there's no compelling reason to turn Obama down.

I eat John McCain! Ommm-nomm-nomm-nomm!!!!

Posted by spokeytown | May 23, 2008 5:53 PM

Moonlight,

Yes indeed: it would be fundamentally unfair to effectively underweight those states which relied on the rules set by the DNC when holding caucuses or closed primaries--rules which, by the way, Clinton did not challenge until after she saw the results.

Posted by DTM | May 23, 2008 5:56 PM

Is there any valid reason why Puerto Rico should be added to the popular vote total?

Posted by Moonlight | May 23, 2008 6:16 PM

The electability argument on Clinton's side is based on phantoms. It is grounded in the asymmetrical reality that the Obama camapign stuck rather well to the high road, and didn't stoop to using the same sorts of things against Clinton that the Clinton campaign has used against him. Were Clinton actually to emerge as the nominee, I think we would see just how rapidly the illusions of Clinton's electability would evaporate, once the Republican's starting pulling all the as-yet-unused weaponry out of the war chest.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 23, 2008 6:34 PM

I suppose some of you are making the argument that caucus states are somehow reliable indicators? Why dont you compare results of Nebraska's caucus a few months ago versus results of their primary a few weeks ago.
Has anyone tried to vote in a caucus? They are not legitimate and disenfranchise voters (long lineups, pushy actvists, etc..)
How can rationally argue that they are a fair indicator of anything but drama?

Posted by ali | May 23, 2008 6:46 PM

I suppose some of you are making the argument that caucus states are somehow reliable indicators? Why dont you compare results of Nebraska's caucus a few months ago versus results of their primary a few weeks ago.
Has anyone tried to vote in a caucus? They are not legitimate and disenfranchise voters (long lineups, pushy actvists, etc..)
How can rationally argue that they are a fair indicator of anything but drama?

Posted by ali | May 23, 2008 6:47 PM

I also think it is worth noting the current national polling gives Clinton an average of about 46 to McCain's 44.5 (per RCP), or a trend estimate of 45.4 to McCain's 43.8 (per pollster). Obama is doing better (47.8 to 43.1 and 46.7 to 43.7 respectively).

And I think there is every reason to be concerned Clinton would end up stuck under 50, where as Obama is less likely to end there, given not just where they stand now, but also how they got there. Specially, Clinton tends to do significantly worse among independents than Obama, but she is holding close thanks to getting better numbers among Democrats than Obama. However, there is good reason to believe that when Clinton endorses Obama and the Clintons campaign for him, his numbers among Democrats will improve. But conversely, I see little reason to believe that Clinton's numbers among independents would improve if somehow she persuaded the superdelegates to hand her the nomination ... and indeed for Dan's reasons, plus the likely negative effects of such a resolution to this contest, they could well get worse. In that sense, I think there is a much greater risk of Clinton being unable to break out past her strong Democratic support to also getting independents, which could cause her to lose the election.

But in any event, it doesn't really matter, because clearly the superdelegates aren't buying her arguments.

Posted by DTM | May 23, 2008 6:49 PM

Clinton's electability argument ignores that she came into this contest with 40%+ personal negatives, and that they've possibly gone up during the campaign.

Posted by John Emerson | May 23, 2008 6:52 PM

Why don't you not suppose and read the frickin' posts.

Posted by PanAmerican | May 23, 2008 6:55 PM

ali,

If you think the DNC should outlaw caucuses, then that is an issue to take up with the DNC after this election. But punishing states which chose, as the DNC rules currently allow, to conduct caucuses would indeed be fundamentally unfair to those states.

Indeed, it is extremely odd to on the one hand complain about caucuses disenfranchising voters, and then on the other hand to propose effectively stripping caucus states of their fair share of delegates by counting by popular vote instead.

Posted by DTM | May 23, 2008 6:56 PM

Clinton is campaigning on counting every single vote. But also that every Democratic delegate should be focused on who can win in November.

Look, if we're going to talk about electability, let's go all the way. Because there's no clear frontrunner against McCain and no clear indication how the state-by-state polling will work out five months from now, this argument of Marsh's boils down to "Obama's black, and that's a huge hurdle for him to overcome." Fine. It's cynical, it's a sotto voce reference to the Bradley Effect, but it's not provably wrong.

The problem is that it immediately brings to mind the rejoinders "Hillary Clinton's a woman, and one who has started out with huge negatives, and those are both huge hurdles for her to overcome" and "voters might be lying about supporting her in a head-to-head contest with McCain because they don't want to seem sexist", which are also cynical and yet can't be dismissed out of hand.

Then the logical conclusion would be for her to get out of the race and tell her delegates to throw their support behind John Edwards (or another white male contender). I have yet to hear this argument from Marsh, for some reason.

Posted by anonymous 37 | May 23, 2008 7:10 PM

But, you see, this "electability" crap is precisely WHY Clinton is going to go to the convention and beyond and sabotage Obama's chances to become President.

SHE HAS TO. It's the only way she will get a shot at running in 2012 (in her mind, anyway). She has to PROVE that Obama WAS the wrong candidate.

The only way to PROVE that is to DO it.

Clinton is not ever going to endorse Obama. She is going to go to the convention and file lawsuits unless she is given the VP slot. And if she gets the VP slot, she will undermine Obama for the next four years - IF he gets elected, which I doubt.

I'm telling you. Watch this.

The Dems have already lost this election. They just don't know it yet. They lost it the minute Hillary started running.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 7:13 PM

I think it was Chris Bowers at OpenLeft that made a good point about the dubiousness of the early state-by-state poll data that the various "electoral map" websites use. In many states there isn't enough polling going on to really say something meaningful about how well Obama and Clinton are doing relative to each other vs. McCain. There *is* a fair amount of national polling going on, and as has already been mentioned, Obama is doing better than Clinton in those, not worse.

Right now Obama's supporters are in "unity" mode, and Cinton's are in "anger" mode. That has to affect what scant polling is going on too. Based on past history, there is every reason to think that, in the end, most Democrats will wind up voting Democratic. Unless of course the eventual nominee gets there by way of a superdelegate coup after a summer spent trashing the legitimacy of the Democratic party and its nomination process...

Posted by jt | May 23, 2008 7:16 PM

Vote for Hillary who won't sell the American way of life down the river to the terrorists and communists like Obama has promised to do. What deals do you think he plans on making with Chavez, Hamas, Iran and Cuba? Huge mistake to vote for Obama - out of his own idealism he will CHANGE the American way of life forever. National security is at risk.

Posted by Marsha | May 23, 2008 7:25 PM

Hillary would look a lot less electable if the Super D's overturn the pledged delegate leader or she gets the nod in a nasty floor fight. She's polling better because Obama is saying nice things about her while he has to fend off attacks from both her and McCain.

Posted by ben | May 23, 2008 7:25 PM

Has anyone tried to vote in a caucus? They are not legitimate and disenfranchise voters (long lineups, pushy actvists, etc..) How can rationally argue that they are a fair indicator of anything but drama?

Yep, I voted in a caucus in Colorado. Yes, there were long lines initially, but it was anything but dramatic and nobody pushed anybody anywhere.

After everyone had registered at the main desk, people went into separate rooms to vote with their precinct. In my precinct, it was Obama 125, Clinton 27 -- in a simple hands-up vote, double-checked. In my room both sexes, whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, old and young, were all represented. No one was harassed or even frowned at for voting one way or the other. Really, the atmosphere couldn't have been any less pressurized. It was a bunch of Democrats choosing their nominee, in a fair and well-mannered way.

Yes, a disproportionate number of young people were there for Obama, because he had inspired them sufficiently to spend a couple of hours on a Tuesday night most would probably otherwise rather spend doing something else. But every registered Democrat in the precinct was allowed to come -- in that very basic sense, the caucus was every bit as democratic as a closed primary. Caucuses are just somewhat more demanding time-wise.

Posted by Ban Johnson | May 23, 2008 7:36 PM

Clinton just has to keep the contest going to the convention, with neither candidate having enough votes to clinch. Even if Obama wins on the first ballot, his candidacy will be so damaged that he will lose in the general election. Clinton will then have "proved" that Obama couldn't win.

She'll then start planning for 2012.

Posted by Mike Furlan | May 23, 2008 8:45 PM

Read that post by Marsha above.

Unless it was snark, THAT is your Clinton supporter - a right wing Republican registered as a Democrat.

The question is, what percentage of Clinton's base is that kind of certifiable freak?

How much damage can these nutcases do to Obama?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 8:50 PM

Read that post by Marsha above.

Unless it was snark, THAT is your Clinton supporter - a right wing Republican registered as a Democrat.

They're also referred to as "trolls." You can find them all over the internets.

(BTW, I hate to blow your mind even further, but it's likely that Marsha isn't even a woman!)

Posted by scythia | May 23, 2008 8:56 PM

What Ben said. Even if it is true that Clinton is a more "electable" candidate than Obama (a proposition that is at best dubious) at this stage in the campaign she can win the nomination only if the superdelegates award it to her at the expense of the leader in pledged delegates, Obama. This will inevitably involve a bitter and divisive fight at the convention, and the Democrats will emerge a disunited, if not fractured, party. In these circumstances there is no way that Clinton can win a general election campaign this year.

Posted by Thrasymachus | May 23, 2008 9:04 PM

It is grounded in the asymmetrical reality that the Obama camapign stuck rather well to the high road, and didn't stoop to using the same sorts of things against Clinton that the Clinton campaign has used against him.

Imagine if Obama had hammered Hillary on her lies about being under fire. She'd now be a complete laughingstock. The Republicans didn't join in because they wanted her to get the nomination because it would have simplified their tactics: Hillary the sociopathic liar.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 23, 2008 9:04 PM

What Ben said. Even if it is true that Clinton is a more "electable" candidate than Obama (a proposition that is at best dubious) at this stage in the campaign she can win the nomination only if the superdelegates award it to her at the expense of the leader in pledged delegates, Obama. This will inevitably involve a bitter and divisive fight at the convention, and the Democrats will emerge a disunited, if not fractured, party. In these circumstances there is no way that Clinton can win a general election campaign this year.

Posted by Thrasymachus | May 23, 2008 9:07 PM

The problem with the "electability" argument is that it discounts the ability (or inability) of a candidate to effectively campaign. We nominated two very electable candidates in 2000 and 2004 only to watch them systematically fritter their chances away through ineptitude.

The real knock against Hillary isn't her image or her position on the issues. It's the fact that she allowed her "inevitable" campaign to be derailed by a relative nobody. She put the wrong people in place and she backed them while they systematically destroyed her.

Now we're supposed to trust that if we just give her another shot, she won't screw it up again. But we have no reason to believe this--- her recent campaigning has arguably been even less effective. For those of us who watched Gore and Kerry futz away the presidency through absolute foolishness, the real issue is electing somebody who knows how to fight. Obama might lose, but he's demonstrated an amazing ability to organize and win contests, whereas Clinton has given us a taste of failure.

Posted by The Atlantic cleaning staff | May 23, 2008 9:09 PM

Re: the Cleaning staff.

Absolutely right. 1,000 cocktails to you, sir.

Though why are Massachusetts Democrats still considered presidential material? I realize I wasn't alive before the 80s, but based on what I've seen, signs seem to point to "no." I can't think of anyone the Right's demonized more...except, maybe...

Posted by scythia | May 23, 2008 9:17 PM

Indeed, this was the first real electoral test Hillary Clinton ever faced, and she did a very poor job. Which I think just shows she isn't much of a politician.

Posted by DTM | May 23, 2008 9:21 PM

Electability is only testable in retrospect.

Every winning candidate is ipso facto electable.
Every losing candidate is ipso facto not electable.

It's a tautology.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | May 23, 2008 9:28 PM

Taylor dipped into Pam Oshry's stash again.

It is such simple-minded nonsense.

Posted by sy | May 23, 2008 9:35 PM

The absolutely electable candidate who was really going to expand the map was John Edwards. Maybe Clinton should really switch gears and start championing an Edwards/Clinton ticket.

Posted by the more you know | May 23, 2008 9:49 PM

"They're also referred to as "trolls." You can find them all over the internets."

Well, we've certainly had more than our share of "Clinton trolls" here, right?

"(BTW, I hate to blow your mind even further, but it's likely that Marsha isn't even a woman!)"

Trust me, this wouldn't surprise me. On the other hand, my guess would be that a lot of these Clinton trolls are in fact women, given the demographics of Clinton supporters. Or perhaps I should say, BITCHES.

Either that, or there are more gay right wing Republicans registered as or posing as Democrats than we've been led to believe - and we've been led to believe there are quite a few.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 9:58 PM

Frankly, I’ve always found the “electability” argument at this stage to be quite nonsensical. With 80% of voters, saying the country is on the wrong track, about 60% thinking that the Iraq war is a disaster, and with Bush and the GOP enjoying sub Nixon approval ratings, even Mike Gravel would stand a decent chance in the general election. Of course, Jimmy Carter had an even more favorable environment in 1976 (remember Ford almost lost the nomination to Reagan) and barely won. The critical variable, I argue, is which candidate will be the most effective campaigner. This is a compound of message, organization, management, strategic insight and presentation skills. By any objective measure, Obama is clearly superior in all respects. He has, after all, done something which no one has managed to do since Wendell Willkie back in 1940; defeat the party’s establishment’s candidate for the presidential nomination.

Posted by Reference Librarian | May 23, 2008 10:45 PM

I should have added that in the final analysis, this all depends on a majority of the electorate not being batshit crazy or dumber than hitching posts--perhaps dubious assumptions! If that's the case then we're screwed. But we have to assume not. As James Madison once said:
"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks -- no form of government can render us secure. To suppose liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them."

Posted by Reference Librarian | May 23, 2008 10:53 PM

"I suppose some of you are making the argument that caucus states are somehow reliable indicators? Why dont you compare results of Nebraska's caucus a few months ago versus results of their primary a few weeks ago.
Has anyone tried to vote in a caucus? They are not legitimate and disenfranchise voters (long lineups, pushy actvists, etc..)
How can rationally argue that they are a fair indicator of anything but drama?"

I voted in a caucus for the first time this year. It was perfectly legitimate and no one was disenfranchised in the least. The lines that I waited in were shorter than I’ve waited at grocery stores. And activism wasn’t all that pushy either, no one was coerced into anything. Overall, it was a very positive experience. Of course, at my local precinct Obama tied Hillary, (Hillary had slightly more people in the beginning but Dodd’s people and a few uncommitted helped us after the first viability vote), and our group was the most diverse by far.

Posted by Raindog | May 23, 2008 11:09 PM

"I should have added that in the final analysis, this all depends on a majority of the electorate not being batshit crazy or dumber than hitching posts--perhaps dubious assumptions!"

Definitely dubious.

Look at the facts. Thirty percent or more still support Bush after eight years of unmitigated disastrous policies, where historians are conflicted over whether he or some President before the Civil War was the worst President in history!

Now tack on the Iran war, giving McCain a "war bounce". The US is still jingoistic enough, even after Iraq, to boost him by maybe ten or fifteen points. That means at least forty to forty five percent of the morons in this country are...morons.

Now let Clinton's certified freaks - say another five or ten percentage points - stay home, or her presence in the VP slot motivates Republicans to tack another five or ten percent on for McCain.

Let Bob Barr suck off a couple million independents (it can't be any more than that, the Libertarians always do 1-2% at best.)

Let Nader suck off a few hundred thousand.

I can see Obama losing this one by a few percentage points easily.

Obama is clearly a more effective and personable campaigner than John Kerry was. That is his sole advantage here. Whether he can distinguish himself enough from McCain once the Iran war starts is THE major question - one which no Democrat has ever addressed.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 24, 2008 1:40 AM

RSH: The reason many of us haven't addressed the topic of how Obama would distinguish himself from McCain "once the Iran war starts" might include that (1) it hasn't, in fact, started yet; (2) many of us understand, however regrettably, that actual Democratic candidates tend not to differ from Republicans at all at the initiations of wars; and (3) it is in fact a fundamental set of variables up to the candidate himself, not what I might prefer him to do.

It's not that everyone else is afraid of the topic and you're the only one with the guts.

In fact I think there are a whole number of possibilities you're leaving by the wayside. For example, that the standard crew around Bush Jr. starts massively pushing for an attack on Iran and face unexpected opposition from institutional sources. Or that there is in fact an attack on Iran, and it's a few aerial sorties that blow up a few sites and victory is pronounced, and then it turns out to be seen as fairly insignificant by the U.S. public.

These are important variables, and it isn't just about who's willing to buck the foreign policy establishment, including the Democratic mainstream, when many of us understand from the get-go that at best we're hoping that in foreign policy terms Democrats end up being slightly less horrible and idiotic than Republicans.

Posted by El Cid | May 24, 2008 7:53 AM

Taylor Marsh is a pretty good reflection of the candidate she so boldly supports. Oh, and Taylor Marsh is a complete fraud, so you con quickly figure out what her candidate is all about.

It has been interesting to watch Hillary Clnton triangulate her way through this campaign. Originally, she didn't give a pinch about "popular vote". She didn't care about Florida or Michigan. She thought the race would be over by Super Tuesday and she would be crowned Queen. But a funny thing happened on the way to the fair... ! Now Clinton has figured that her only hope is to claim the popular vote matters and that every single vote should count. Sadly, her earlier behaviors contradict this position and sell her out for the fraud she really is. All she cares about is herself and her power.

On the electability matter, this is more Clintonian BS. Since the early primaries have been run, and where Clinton has done well, we have witnessed a change in political tide. Obama is now carrying those areas where Clinton claims only she is electable. Obama is now polling better than Clinton in New Jersey and California, two states she won handily. Obama is strong in states where she claims only she can beat McCain. The electability arguement is dashed when we see Obama way a head in Ohio and Pennsylvania. What is really interesting is that Obama is doing well in Colorado, New Mexico and even Arizona, McCain's home state. Obama brings states that have been Republican strongholds into play. Obama is electable, and in ways Clinton would never have stood a chance.

Those long standing Democratic states will remain Democratic states come November, but Obama will bring new states into play that the Democrats have not had a shot at in a very long time, and that will lead to broader victory and representation in Washington.

Posted by LannyMacD | May 24, 2008 1:16 PM

You Obama supporters just dont get why she is more electable....
Here is how it works - Obama beats Clinton among democrats... People prefer him when given a choice of Candidate in the primary, (they might like him, or just hate her) BUT... When you bring in the General Electorate, She performs better than him against McCain.
You novices keep on bringing up Obama v Clinton numbers up to support electablity, this a silly and insufficient argument. --------------------Visit - www.electoral-vote.com-
In the General Election Clinton currently picks up from Kerry ---FLA, Ohio, Arkansas, Nevada, West Virginia & New Hampshire(67 ELECTORAL VOTES)... Obama currently picks up Colorado & maybe Virginia (24 ELECORAL VOTES) - BUT HE LOSES (Michigan & Wisconsin (24 ELECTORAL VOTES) ergo He doent pick up any Electoral Votes from Kerry-----------------------------------------------------
She is definitelly more electable (1) She is more moderate which helps her with Working class voters 2) Name recognition - Most voters lean to the Establishment candidate (nam) in the General Election _ Clinton is still a strong name, not including tthe far that spews venom at her.

--------------------------------------------------
Obama's support comes from AA's , Far Left (Moveon.org/ Huff Post/ Activists), 100K+ College Grad Dems & Young Voters.
This is high percentage of primary and caucus voters but this suppport is like juice from concentrate, Once you add water it is not as strong, the addition of independents & Republicans into the electorate makes what seems like huge support for Obama, just a vocal minority.-----------------------------------------Electabilty in the General Election sould be what motvates all democrats, we want to win the white house. Obama has work to do just to compete, Hillary will be ahead and would cruise to victory---- Moderate Democrats win, Liberal Democrats do Not... HINT: HILLARY GRABS A GOOD PERCENT OF INDEPENDENT & REPUBLICAN WOMEN. in the Gen Election.. OBAMA IS ALREADY MAXED OUT HIS AA SUPPORT IN THE PRIMARY PROCESS... HE ADDS NO NEW VOTERS... This is why in all General Election polls , she fairs better thean him.. ELECTABILTY MY DEAR WATSON.

Posted by Randy W | May 24, 2008 1:35 PM

Why don't people realize that when you're formatting looks weird, it makes you look crazy? If you aren't crazy, you also might be a bot, so either way it's not the best tactic.

"Anyways, the fundamentals are so strong in the Dems' direction (Republicans in charge and strongly ID'ed with everything that's gone wrong this decade) that we could nominate the Cookie Monster at this point and he would probably win."

Man, those campaign slogans would just write themselves, especially against Oscar the Grouch and his VP, that weird orange worm.

Posted by Reality Man | May 24, 2008 2:29 PM

The problem with the electability argument is that, basically, one is reduced to saying, "I'm not going to vote for the candidate I prefer, but for the candidate I think other people prefer" (alternatively, "the candidate whom the polls tell me other people prefer").

What a way to throw away your fundamental right to vote for the candidate of your own bloody choice.

Posted by Hans B | May 24, 2008 3:33 PM

Ah, finally a decent response on the subject from El Cid.

So let's look at it.

"The reason many of us haven't addressed the topic of how Obama would distinguish himself from McCain "once the Iran war starts" might include that (1) it hasn't, in fact, started yet;"

You see absolutely no value in addressing the issue explicitly beforehand? Why?

"(2) many of us understand, however regrettably, that actual Democratic candidates tend not to differ from Republicans at all at the initiations of wars;"

Fine. That was my point. An addition point is how then is Obama going to benefit from such a war if he can't distinguish himself from McCain the "war hero"? You don't see any comparison here between John Kerry - who at least wasn't a draft dodger - and Bush in 2004?

You don't want to address that issue? Why?

"and (3) it is in fact a fundamental set of variables up to the candidate himself, not what I might prefer him to do."

What has that got to do with anything I said? I'm asking for one single Democrat of some stature in the party to address what should be done in terms of an official Democratic response if an Iran war starts - a response that hopefully would blunt any advantage for McCain.

You see no advantage in discussing this, even as a hypothetical? Why?

"It's not that everyone else is afraid of the topic and you're the only one with the guts."

Really? Prove it.

"In fact I think there are a whole number of possibilities you're leaving by the wayside."

I'm not leaving any "possibilities" by the wayside. I recognize that it is quite POSSIBLE that Bush will not attack Iran. So what? I'm asking what do the Dems intend to do if he DOES? Therefore the other possibilities are not relevant to the question.

"For example, that the standard crew around Bush Jr. starts massively pushing for an attack on Iran and face unexpected opposition from institutional sources."

They already have pushed back at the Pentagon. Which is why Fallon was fired, and why Petraeus was made CENTCOM head. Did you miss that?

The bottom line, as Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern and others have said, is that if Bush gives the order, the Pentagon will salute smartly and carry it out. You think otherwise? Evidence?

The intelligence agencies have already demonstrated their position with the last Iran NIE. While they stated they thought Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program, they also covered their asses by claiming - without any significant evidence - that Iran originally HAD a nuclear weapons program.

Besides which, if Bush and Cheney are intending to start this war for oil, for Israel, for US hegemony in the ME, or for whatever reason, where do you get the notion that mere "pushback" from "institutional sources" are going to derail them from doing so, when they are on the way out anyway, and there is no downside to their doing so?

"Or that there is in fact an attack on Iran, and it's a few aerial sorties that blow up a few sites and victory is pronounced, and then it turns out to be seen as fairly insignificant by the U.S. public."

It's not the US public I'm concerned about. The Iranians get a say in this as well.

First of all, my expectation is that Bush will launch a minor attack on some alleged "insurgent training camp" in Iran. Fine. Iran is likely not to respond hysterically to that.

But Iran will respond in some fashion, probably by ratcheting up pressure on the US in Iraq or elsewhere.

So what do you think Bush and Cheney will do? Escalate, of course. If the point is to start a war with Iran, why not escalate?

Eventually, Iran will be forced to either capitulate or escalate itself.

I suspect Bush will launch strikes on camps before November, to give McCain a "war bounce". Then he will launch much larger attacks after November, to tie the hands of whatever administration is incoming.

How does any of this not warrant discussion concerning the Democratic response to these events? Do you really think any attack on Iran will be ignored during an election campaign?

"These are important variables, and it isn't just about who's willing to buck the foreign policy establishment, including the Democratic mainstream, when many of us understand from the get-go that at best we're hoping that in foreign policy terms Democrats end up being slightly less horrible and idiotic than Republicans."

Again, I know that. Ignoring the subject is not going to make it go away.

And Matt is ignoring it for his own reasons. Or are you acting as his mouthpiece today? What, he can't say what you just said in a substantive post? All I'm asking for is a simple "yes", "no", "I don't know" answer to two simple questions from Matt.

He can't handle that? Requesting he establish his position on the subject is somehow beyond the pale? Why?

I get morons here saying, "Why should Matt answer your two questions?"

Why not? He's supposed to be a "pundit" with opinions on foreign policy and national security. I can't ask what his opinions are on this topic? Why?

No, the reason is that he's a ballless wonder who is either afraid of being tarred and feathered by the AIPAC crowd for not supporting an Iran attack, or he's afraid of being tarred and feathered by the anti-war faction for being in favor of an Iran attack.

So he doesn't answer the questions.

It's that simple.

Prove otherwise.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 24, 2008 9:34 PM

I disagree with the argument that HRC is the stronger candidate thus more electable.

Caveats such as name recognition with a majority of her supporters under the impression Hillary will continue Bill's legacy and women voters wanting to break the glass ceiling are in large-part why Hillary appeared as the stronger candidate for awhile. That has changed.

The popular vote argument is full of holes. The primary nomination process is completely different from the general election. Clinton lost the African American vote. The youth are mobilized for Obama not Hillary. Many [tens, hundreds of] thousands of voters have buyers remorse. Add tens of thousands of the republicans who admittedly stated there was no way they would vote for her in November according to exit polls. Equally important is an untold number of women changed their minds, too due to Hillary's scorched-earth campaign tactics. Thus deciding to nominate the candidate on the 'popular vote' is subjective but a guaranteed loss.

According to polls Obama vs McCain and Clinton vs McCain Obama out polls Clinton 8 points against McCain in California to her 3 meager points. He is ahead of Mccain in several swing states. Granted polls are only snap shots in a moment of time, but if this is a trend, which I believe it very well could be, it belies HRC's claims as being stronger against McCain.

Furthermore considering Obama did not run a scorched-earth campaign against Hillary, she has not had to defend herself much. Clinton's claims of being vetted are misleading at best. The republicans' two or more years of opposition research on her and Bill after leaving the WH is rife with new information to use against her. So it is unknown how she would stand up under a barrage of negative hits.

Equally notable: Hillary burned bridges.

* James Carville on MTP called Bill Richardson "Judas" on Easter nonetheless.

* "John Kerry is dead to us"

Her silence says it all.

A host of situations that Hillary could have taken the high road, but chose not to did not escape notice either:

For someone who claims to have fought for civil rights Hillary flunked. Had she said to the voters, who refuse to vote for Obama because of his skin-colour, not to vote for her either would have shown strength of character and integrity.

When she could have chosen to unify she chose to divide; when she could have been straight with the voters she chose to triangulate and mislead; when she could have taken responsibility she chose to shift blame elsewhere; when she had the chance to apologize she chose to offer an explanation; when she had the opportunity to set the record straight she chose to embellish. In every case Hillary took the low road.

Hillary Rodham Clinton lost not because of her gender, but because she ran a sloppy campaign.

She is neither the stronger candidate nor more electable -- any argument to the contrary is moot.

Posted by serena1313 | May 25, 2008 5:01 AM

Any post that begins with "Taylor Marsh says" is always good for a laugh.

Posted by John B. | May 25, 2008 1:47 PM